AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has a higher average benchmark score at 6019, compared to 5467 for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, a difference of roughly 10%. The Radeon sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 32nd.

Q: How do the two cards compare in DirectX 12 workloads?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Quadro M4000 wins with a score of 680 against 400 for the Radeon, a 41.2% advantage. However, in PassMark DirectX 12, the Quadro's lead is marginal at 26 vs 25, only 3.8% ahead.

Q: Which GPU is better for compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M leads in PassMark GPU Compute with 2840 vs 2660, a 6.8% advantage. It also wins in Geekbench OpenCL with 20255 vs 19118, a 5.9% lead.

Q: What is the difference in memory configuration?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 memory pool on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 760M uses system shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth described as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has the newer manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses a 28 nm process with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Q: What is the DirectX feature level support for each card?

A: The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 760M and NVIDIA Quadro M4000 represent two fundamentally different design philosophies separated by nearly a decade of GPU architecture evolution.

The Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor built on AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Phoenix chip family. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, packing 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per mm², an extraordinarily high figure that reflects the density advantages of modern process technology. The chip is designated as part of the Navi III IGP generation and follows in the footsteps of the Navi II IGP.

The Quadro M4000, by contrast, is a discrete workstation GPU based on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip. It is built on a much older 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 5,200 million transistors spread across a 398 mm² die. Its transistor density is just 13.1 million per mm², roughly one-tenth that of the Radeon. The Quadro belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation and directly succeeded the Quadro Kepler line.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Radeon 760M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, along with 8 ray tracing cores. The Quadro M4000 has 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer shading units, the Radeon achieves higher raw FP32 throughput at 5.323 TFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro, thanks to its much higher clock speeds. The Radeon boosts to 2599 MHz, while the Quadro's clock data is not recorded in the database.

The memory subsystems are entirely different in kind. The Radeon 760M uses system shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. The Quadro M4000 has a fixed configuration: 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon's memory clock is likewise system shared, while the Quadro runs its memory at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective data rate.

Power characteristics also diverge sharply. The Radeon 760M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for compact systems. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card with a 120 W TDP, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W power supply. The Radeon uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs on the Radeon are motherboard dependent, whereas the Quadro provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Quadro measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The Radeon 760M was released on 2024-01-30 and remains in active production. The Quadro M4000 was released on 2015-06-28 and is now end-of-life, with the Quadro Pascal as its successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a split decision, with each GPU winning 5 of the 10 recorded tests. The patterns, however, reveal clear strengths for each.

The Quadro M4000 dominates in the legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 workloads. In PassMark DirectX 9, it scores 113 against 65 for the Radeon, a 42.5% advantage. In PassMark DirectX 10, the Quadro scores 33 against 19, a 42.4% lead. These are the two largest margins in the entire comparison, indicating that the Maxwell architecture retains strong performance in older API paths.

The Quadro also wins decisively in the modern 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, scoring 680 to the Radeon's 400, a 41.2% difference. This is somewhat surprising given the Radeon's newer architecture, but the discrete card's dedicated memory and higher raw fill rates likely contribute. The Quadro's pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s and texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s are competitive with the Radeon's 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s, respectively.

In PassMark G3D, the Quadro scores 6680 versus 5310 for the Radeon, a 20.5% lead. The Quadro also narrowly edges out the Radeon in PassMark DirectX 12, 26 to 25, a 3.8% margin.

The Radeon 760M, meanwhile, shows its strength in modern API and compute workloads. The largest win for the Radeon comes in PassMark G2D, where it scores 890 versus 673, a 32.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon scores 30336 versus 24640, a 23.1% lead, showing strong performance in modern graphics APIs.

The Radeon also wins in PassMark DirectX 11, scoring 52 against 49, a 6.1% margin. In PassMark GPU Compute, it scores 2840 against 2660, a 6.8% advantage. Finally, in Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon scores 20255 versus 19118, a 5.9% lead.

The data suggests a clear generational split. The Quadro M4000 excels in older DirectX 9 and 10 workloads and in the synthetic 3DMark DX12 test, while the Radeon 760M leads in Vulkan, OpenCL, and compute-oriented tasks. The Radeon's higher FP32 throughput of 5.323 TFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro aligns with its compute wins.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Radeon 760M's average score of 6019 places it just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 by 0.5%. The Quadro M4000's average of 5467 puts it 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon 610M, 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130.

The Verdict

The benchmark data tells a story of two GPUs optimized for different eras and use cases.

For users working with legacy DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 applications, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the clear choice. Its 42.5% lead in PassMark DirectX 9 and 42.4% lead in DirectX 10 are the largest margins in any test. The Quadro also delivers significantly higher performance in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, scoring 41.2% higher than the Radeon, and maintains a 20.5% lead in PassMark G3D. Its dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 memory with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed, predictable memory subsystem that does not depend on system configuration.

For users prioritizing modern APIs, compute workloads, and power efficiency, the AMD Radeon 760M is the stronger option. It leads by 23.1% in Geekbench Vulkan, 32.2% in PassMark G2D, 6.8% in PassMark GPU Compute, 6.1% in PassMark DirectX 11, and 5.9% in Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon's 15 W TDP makes it suitable for systems where power draw is a concern, and its 4 nm process gives it a significant efficiency advantage over the 28 nm Quadro.

The Radeon also offers ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (12_1). Its higher FP32 throughput of 5.323 TFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro is reflected in the compute benchmark results.

The Quadro M4000 is end-of-life, while the Radeon 760M remains in active production. The Radeon's higher average benchmark score of 6019 versus 5467 gives it the overall edge in the database's aggregate measurements. Users building new systems should favor the Radeon for its modern feature set and compute performance. Users maintaining legacy systems with older DirectX workloads may still find the Quadro M4000 adequate, but its age and 120 W power draw make it the less compelling option for new deployments.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 760M | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1664 |

| TMUs | 32 | 104 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 5.323 TFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 15 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 192.3 GB/s |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | Not specified | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

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

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2015-06-28 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Pascal |