AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 760M and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a modern integrated processor from 2024 built on a 4nm process, the other a 2013-era professional discrete card on 28nm. Benchmark data shows the Radeon 760M wins both shared head-to-head tests decisively, yet the Quadro K4000 remains competitive in overall average score due to its professional-grade memory subsystem and driver optimizations. The Radeon 760M delivers 197.2% higher OpenCL performance and 335.6% higher Vulkan performance than the Quadro K4000, but the latter still holds a 34th percentile ranking versus the 760M's 35th — a statistical dead heat in the broader GPU landscape.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: pick the AMD Radeon 760M if your priority is modern API support and raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,255 crushes the Quadro K4000's 6,816, and its Vulkan result of 30,336 dwarfs the K4000's 6,964. The 760M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and has 8 dedicated ray-tracing cores — features the Kepler-based K4000 simply cannot offer. This is the card for gaming, content creation, or any workload that leverages contemporary graphics APIs.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 if you need dedicated VRAM and legacy professional software compatibility. Its 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus delivers 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the 760M's system-shared memory with bandwidth described only as "System Dependent." The K4000 also has more shading units (768 vs 512), more TMUs (64 vs 32), and more ROPs (24 vs 16). Its 80W TDP and single-slot design with one 6-pin power connector make it a drop-in upgrade for older workstations, and its 250W suggested PSU requirement is modest.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story: the 760M scores 6,019 average versus the K4000's 5,982 — a 0.6% advantage that falls within noise. Both sit in the 34-35th percentile of all GPUs. The 760M's nearest rivals include the RX 6400 (0.3% ahead) and Quadro P2000 (0.5% behind), while the K4000 trades blows with the K4000M (0.1% behind) and FirePro W4100 (0.1% behind). For legacy software that relies on OpenGL 4.6 — which both support — the K4000's dedicated memory may actually provide smoother performance in professional applications, despite its massive compute deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is overwhelmingly faster. Its FP32 throughput is 5.323 TFLOPS versus the Quadro K4000's 1,244.2 GFLOPS (1.244 TFLOPS). In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M scores 20,255 versus 6,816 — a 197.2% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern APIs?

A: No. The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The 760M also has 8 ray-tracing cores; the K4000 has none.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K4000 has dedicated 3 GB GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus delivering 134.8 GB/s. The Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with a bus width described as "System Shared" and bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes compare?

A: The Radeon 760M packs 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die (142.6M per mm²) using TSMC's 4nm process. The Quadro K4000 has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die (11.5M per mm²) using 28nm.

Q: What are the physical and power requirements?

A: The Radeon 760M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 15W TDP. The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241mm (9.5 inches) long and 111mm (4.4 inches) tall, requiring one 6-pin connector, an 80W TDP, and a 250W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon 760M dominates with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,336 versus the K4000's 6,964 — a 335.6% difference. This reflects the 760M's modern RDNA 3.0 architecture and Vulkan 1.4 support.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans a decade of semiconductor evolution. The Radeon 760M uses AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 4nm node, packing 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die — a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. This is the Navi III IGP generation (codenamed Phoenix), featuring 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 dedicated ray-tracing cores. Its base clock runs at 800 MHz with a 2599 MHz boost, yielding pixel and texture rates of 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s respectively. FP16 performance matches FP32 at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

The Quadro K4000 uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture (chip GK106) on TSMC's 28nm node, containing 2,540 million transistors across a larger 221 mm² die — just 11.5 million per square millimeter. It has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, but no ray-tracing or tensor cores. Its memory clock runs at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), and it achieves only 12.96 GPixel/s pixel rate and 51.84 GTexel/s texture rate. FP32 performance is 1,244.2 GFLOPS, with no listed FP16 capability.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark gulf. RDNA 3.0's 4nm process allows nearly 10x the transistor density of Kepler's 28nm, enabling the 760M to deliver 4.3x the FP32 throughput while consuming just 15W versus 80W. The 760M's ray-tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support have no equivalent in the K4000, which tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. However, the K4000's dedicated GDDR5 memory provides deterministic bandwidth that the 760M's system-shared memory cannot guarantee.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 760M | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 512 | 768 |

| TMUs | 32 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | None |

| FP32 | 5.323 TFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| Memory | System Shared | 3 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 134.8 GB/s |

| TDP | 15 W | 80 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2013-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 1,269 USD |

The Radeon 760M wins on process technology, power efficiency, and modern API support. The Quadro K4000 counters with more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus dedicated VRAM with fixed bandwidth. The K4000 also has a defined physical footprint (241mm length, 111mm height) and specific display outputs, while the 760M's outputs are motherboard-dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a story of total dominance by the Radeon 760M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M scores 20,255 against the K4000's 6,816 — a 197.2% advantage. This gap reflects the 4.3x difference in FP32 throughput (5.323 TFLOPS vs 1,244.2 GFLOPS) combined with the 760M's faster boost clock and modern memory architecture. Even though the K4000 has 50% more shading units (768 vs 512), each Kepler unit is vastly slower per clock than an RDNA 3.0 unit.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 30,336 for the 760M versus 6,964 for the K4000 — a 335.6% margin. Vulkan 1.4 support on the 760M versus Vulkan 1.2.175 on the K4000 plays a role, but the sheer compute advantage is the primary driver. The 760M's 8 ray-tracing cores also contribute to Vulkan workloads that leverage RT features, something the K4000 cannot accelerate at all.

Looking at broader benchmark context, the 760M has 10 recorded benchmarks spanning DirectX 9 through 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, G2D, G3D, and compute tests. Its Passmark G3D score is 5,310, with DirectX 11 scoring 52 and DirectX 12 scoring 25. The K4000 only has three recorded benchmarks — Metal (4,166), OpenCL (6,816), and Vulkan (6,964) — all compute-oriented. This data asymmetry means the 760M's average score of 6,019 (35th percentile) is based on a wider workload range, while the K4000's 5,982 average (34th percentile) derives solely from compute tests.

The nearest rivals for each GPU underscore their positioning. The 760M sits within 0.5% of the RX 6400, GTX 770M, RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, and Quadro P2000 — all scoring between 5,996 and 6,049. The K4000 trades within 0.2% of the K4000M, FirePro W4100, and Radeon HD 8750M, plus the same RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. The RTX PRO 6000 appearing as a close rival to both cards (0.4% ahead of the 760M, 0.2% ahead of the K4000) highlights how average benchmark scores can mask enormous architectural differences — a modern server GPU and a 2013 quad card land within 0.6% of each other in this metric, despite the 760M's 197-336% lead in individual compute tests.

For the K4000's remaining use case, the 134.8 GB/s dedicated bandwidth and 3 GB VRAM capacity provide consistent performance in professional applications with predictable memory requirements. The 760M's system-shared memory means its effective bandwidth varies with the host system's RAM configuration — a variable the K4000 simply does not have to contend with. This makes the K4000 the safer choice for legacy professional software that was optimized for Kepler's compute model, while the 760M is the obvious pick for any modern workload.