AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively lopsided. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points. That is a 288.7% advantage for the AMD part, meaning the Radeon 760M delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute throughput of the Fermi-era Quadro.

This single head-to-head result aligns with the broader average benchmark scores. The Radeon 760M carries an average benchmark score of 6,019 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro 4000M averages 5,211. The raw delta in the head-to-head is far larger than the average score gap, which reflects the fact that the Quadro 4000M only has one recorded benchmark in the database, whereas the Radeon 760M has ten.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Radeon 760M sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M lands in the 30th percentile. That five-point percentile gap understates the head-to-head margin, because the percentile is computed against all GPUs in the database, many of which are far more powerful than either of these parts.

The Radeon 760M's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001 average score (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% behind). These are all essentially neck-and-neck within a 1% band, indicating that the Radeon 760M's average performance is well-established in a tight cluster.

The Quadro 4000M's nearest rivals are similarly close: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5,161 (1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5,154 (1.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5,284 (1.4% ahead). The Quadro 4000M holds its own against these contemporaries, but they are all in a much lower performance tier than the Radeon 760M's cluster.

The Radeon 760M also shows strong results in other tests not shared by the Quadro. In PassMark G3D, it scores 5,310; in Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 30,336; in PassMark GPU Compute, it manages 2,840; and in PassMark G2D, it scores 890. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded results for any of these tests, so those numbers stand as evidence of the Radeon 760M's broader capability set.

In DirectX-focused workloads, the Radeon 760M posts PassMark scores of 65 in DirectX 9, 52 in DirectX 11, 25 in DirectX 12, and 19 in DirectX 10. The Quadro 4000M has no PassMark DirectX entries at all, meaning the database contains no direct comparison for legacy API performance.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test gives the Radeon 760M a score of 400, a result that places it in the lower range of modern integrated graphics performance, but the Quadro 4000M cannot be compared here due to missing data. For the Quadro 4000M, the only recorded data point is that single Geekbench OpenCL score, so any assessment of its other capabilities relies on specification analysis rather than measured results.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 760M than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M in OpenCL?

A: The Radeon 760M scores 20,255 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,211 for the Quadro 4000M, a 288.7% difference.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon 760M averages 6,019 across all its recorded benchmarks, while the Quadro 4000M averages 5,211 based on its single OpenCL result.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Radeon 760M is in the 35th percentile, while the Quadro 4000M is in the 30th percentile.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Radeon 760M?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the closest, with an average score of 6,001, just 0.3% behind the Radeon 760M. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the only rival ahead, at 6,049, which is 0.5% ahead.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro 4000M?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is closest, at 5,161, which is 1% behind the Quadro 4000M. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is 1.1% behind at 5,154.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M have any benchmark results other than OpenCL?

A: No, the database records only the Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,211 for the Quadro 4000M. The Radeon 760M has ten recorded benchmark results across multiple test suites.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in every measurable category available in the database. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 288.7% margin. It also holds a higher average benchmark score, 6,019 versus 5,211, and a higher percentile ranking, 35th versus 30th.

For compute-oriented workloads, the Radeon 760M is clearly the better choice. Its OpenCL score of 20,255 indicates strong general-purpose GPU compute capability, and its Vulkan score of 30,336 further demonstrates modern API support. The PassMark GPU Compute score of 2,840 adds another data point for compute-heavy tasks.

For DirectX gaming workloads, only the Radeon 760M has recorded results. Its PassMark DirectX 11 score of 52 and DirectX 12 score of 25 show functional but modest performance. The Quadro 4000M has no DirectX benchmark entries, so the database cannot confirm any advantage for it in legacy gaming scenarios.

The Quadro 4000M's only recorded win is not a benchmark at all but a specification: it has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. This dedicated memory configuration could benefit workloads that require low-latency access to a fixed memory pool, whereas the Radeon 760M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.

In terms of average score comparisons against their respective rival clusters, the Radeon 760M sits in a group of GPUs averaging around 6,000, while the Quadro 4000M sits in a group averaging around 5,200. The Radeon 760M's cluster includes discrete desktop parts like the RX 6400 and Quadro P2000, whereas the Quadro 4000M's cluster is dominated by older mobile parts like the GeForce GTX 760M and GeForce 940M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ dramatically across nearly every specification field. The Radeon 760M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, uses the Phoenix chip, and belongs to the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process at TSMC, employs the GF104 chip, and is based on the Fermi architecture.

Transistor counts diverge enormously: the Radeon 760M packs 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, for a density of just 5.9M per mm². The Radeon 760M achieves over 13 times the transistor density.

Clock behavior also differs. The Radeon 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The Quadro 4000M has no base or boost clock listed; instead, its memory clock is 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective. Memory configurations are entirely different: the Radeon 760M uses system shared memory with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The Radeon 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. Pixel rate favors the Radeon 760M at 41.58 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors it at 83.17 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.323 TFLOPS for the Radeon 760M versus 638.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000M. The Radeon 760M also supports FP16 at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro 4000M has no FP16 listing.

Power and form factor differ substantially. The Radeon 760M has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP with no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors. The Radeon 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the Radeon 760M and portable device dependent for the Quadro 4000M.

API support also diverges. The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Production status and release dates are far apart. The Radeon 760M is active and was released on 2024-01-30, while the Quadro 4000M is end-of-life and was released on 2011-02-21. The Radeon 760M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, and the Quadro 4000M's predecessor is Quadro FX Mobile, with its successor being Quadro Kepler-M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans more than a decade of GPU design. The AMD Radeon 760M is built on RDNA 3.0, a modern graphics architecture designed for efficiency and feature completeness. It uses a 4 nm TSMC process, which enables the extremely high transistor density of 142.6M per mm² and a 15 W TDP despite having 512 shading units and 8 ray tracing cores.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is based on Fermi, an architecture that debuted in 2010. It uses a 40 nm TSMC process and has a drastically lower transistor density of 5.9M per mm². Fermi was designed for a very different era of GPU computing, lacking hardware ray tracing, lacking Vulkan support, and only reaching DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level.

The Radeon 760M's 8 ray tracing cores are a fundamental architectural addition that the Quadro 4000M simply does not have. Similarly, the Radeon 760M's support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) reflects a modern feature set, while the Quadro 4000M's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a compatibility-level implementation rather than a full modern implementation.

The cache and memory architecture also reflect different design philosophies. The Radeon 760M uses system shared memory, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM for all graphics data. This is typical for an integrated GPU and allows for flexible memory allocation, but bandwidth is system dependent. The Quadro 4000M uses dedicated GDDR5 with a fixed 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 256-bit bus, a configuration suited for discrete mobile workstations.

The Radeon 760M's FP16 support at 1:1 ratio with FP32 is a notable architectural feature for compute workloads, as it allows for doubled throughput on half-precision operations. The Quadro 4000M has no FP16 listing, indicating that half-precision compute is either unsupported or not documented.

The process node difference, 4 nm versus 40 nm, is the single largest architectural enabler for the Radeon 760M's advantages. It allows the Radeon 760M to fit over 13 times more transistors per square millimeter, which translates directly into higher shading unit counts, ray tracing hardware, and modern API support, all within a 15 W envelope versus the Quadro 4000M's 100 W.

The Verdict

The data points overwhelmingly toward the AMD Radeon 760M for anyone choosing between these two GPUs today. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 288.7%, holds a higher average benchmark score (6,019 versus 5,211), and sits in a higher percentile (35th versus 30th). Its nearest rivals in the database include modern discrete GPUs like the RX 6400 and Quadro P2000, while the Quadro 4000M competes with much older mobile parts like the GeForce GTX 760M and GeForce 940M.

The Radeon 760M is the clear choice for compute workloads, modern API support, and energy efficiency. Its 15 W TDP, 4 nm process, 512 shading units, 8 ray tracing cores, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it a functional modern GPU. Its FP32 throughput of 5.323 TFLOPS is over eight times the Quadro 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate and texture rate are similarly dominant.

The Quadro 4000M's only advantages are its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and its 256-bit bus. For workloads that strictly require a fixed, dedicated memory pool, that configuration may be relevant, but the Radeon 760M's system shared memory approach is more flexible and its compute performance is vastly superior.

For a modern PC builder, the Radeon 760M is the only sensible choice from the data. It is an active product, released in 2024, with a broad benchmark footprint and modern features. The Quadro 4000M is end-of-life, released in 2011, with only one recorded benchmark and no Vulkan support.

For someone specifically maintaining legacy Quadro 4000M systems, the database shows that its performance tier is roughly comparable to a GeForce 940M or Radeon R7 M260X, all within a 1.4% band. Upgrading from that tier to the Radeon 760M's tier would represent a substantial jump in compute capability, as evidenced by the 288.7% OpenCL margin.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the AMD Radeon 760M for any new build or upgrade path, and reserve the Quadro 4000M only for legacy hardware preservation where its dedicated memory and MXM form factor are required.