AMD Radeon 780M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data offers a fascinating split decision between these two mobile-class graphics solutions. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M posts a score of 19989, while the AMD Radeon 780M trails with 18602. That gives the NVIDIA part a 7.5% advantage in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming, suggesting the older discrete GPU still holds a respectable edge in raw OpenCL execution.

The Vulkan results tell a very different story. Here, the AMD Radeon 780M surges ahead with a score of 33683, while the Quadro M4000M manages only 20971. The delta is substantial: the AMD part is 37.7% faster in this API. That is not a small gap. It indicates a generational shift in how each architecture handles modern graphics workloads, and the direction is clearly in favor of the newer RDNA 3.0 design.

Looking at the aggregate benchmark averages, the picture becomes more nuanced. The Quadro M4000M carries an average benchmark score of 20480 across its recorded tests, while the Radeon 780M sits at 17588. The NVIDIA part also ranks slightly higher in the percentile versus all GPUs, at 65 compared to 61 for AMD. However, the Radeon 780M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 with an average score of 17639, a delta of -0.3%, and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 at 17666, also -0.4%. The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, sits within 0.3% of the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534) and 0.4% of the Intel Arc B570 (20556).

The Vulkan win for AMD is the headline number here. A 37.7% lead in any benchmark is decisive, and it suggests that the Radeon 780M is the better choice for modern graphics APIs that leverage Vulkan's low-level access. The OpenCL result, however, reminds us that the Quadro M4000M is not obsolete in compute tasks. Each part wins one head-to-head test, so the data does not crown a single overall champion. It points instead to workload-dependent strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon 780M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Phoenix chip, also from TSMC but on a much newer 4 nm node. The process shrink is dramatic and shows up in the transistor density figures: the NVIDIA chip packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD chip contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, which works out to 142.6 million per square millimeter. That is over ten times the transistor density.

The memory subsystem could not be more different. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 780M, as an integrated graphics processor, uses system shared memory. Its bus width is listed as system shared, its memory type is system shared, and its bandwidth is system dependent. This is a fundamental architectural split: discrete versus integrated. The NVIDIA part relies on its own fast VRAM, while the AMD part depends on the host system's memory configuration.

Compute resources also diverge. The Quadro M4000M carries 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Radeon 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer units, the AMD part achieves higher fill rates. Its pixel rate is 92.80 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Its texture rate is 139.2 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. The floating point throughput tells a similar story: the Radeon 780M reaches 8.909 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Quadro M4000M manages 2.593 TFLOPS. The AMD part also supports FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, a feature the NVIDIA part lacks entirely in the recorded data.

Clock speeds reflect the different power envelopes. The Quadro M4000M runs at a 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. The Radeon 780M has a much lower 800 MHz base but an extremely high 2900 MHz boost. The boost behavior explains some of the performance gap in Vulkan, where the AMD part can ramp up aggressively. Power consumption is also starkly different: the Quadro M4000M is rated at 100 W, while the Radeon 780M draws only 15 W. That is a massive efficiency difference, and it comes with a form factor change. The NVIDIA part is an MXM module, while the AMD part is an IGP.

Other feature differences are notable. The Radeon 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro M4000M has none recorded. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), compared to DirectX 12 (12_1) for NVIDIA. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface differs too: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Radeon. The NVIDIA part was released in 2015 and is marked end-of-life, while the AMD part arrived in 2024 and is still active. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. The Radeon's predecessor is Navi II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has an average benchmark score of 20480, compared to 17588 for the AMD Radeon 780M.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 780M in Vulkan?

A: The Radeon 780M scores 33683 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 37.7% ahead of the Quadro M4000M's 20971.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 19989 versus 18602 for the Radeon 780M, a 7.5% advantage.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M4000M uses a 28 nm process, while the Radeon 780M uses a 4 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: How do their power ratings compare?

A: The Quadro M4000M is rated at 100 W, while the Radeon 780M is rated at 15 W.

Q: Does the Radeon 780M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 12 ray tracing cores. The Quadro M4000M has no ray tracing cores recorded.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 28 nm for NVIDIA versus 4 nm for AMD. Transistor count is 5,200 million for the Quadro, 25,390 million for the Radeon. Die size is 398 mm² versus 178 mm². Transistor density is 13.1 million per square millimeter versus 142.6 million. The base clock is 975 MHz for NVIDIA and 800 MHz for AMD. The boost clock is 1013 MHz versus 2900 MHz. Memory size is 4 GB of GDDR5 for the Quadro, system shared for the Radeon. Memory bus width is 256 bit versus system shared. Memory bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus system dependent.

Shading units number 1280 for NVIDIA and 768 for AMD. TMUs are 80 versus 48. ROPs are 64 versus 32. Ray tracing cores are absent on the Quadro and 12 on the Radeon. Pixel rate is 64.83 GPixel/s versus 92.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 81.04 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.593 TFLOPS versus 8.909 TFLOPS. FP16 is not recorded for NVIDIA, while AMD lists 8.909 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. TDP is 100 W versus 15 W. Slot width is MXM Module for NVIDIA and IGP for AMD. Power connectors are none for both. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus motherboard dependent. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan is 1.4 for both. Production status is end-of-life versus active. Release date is 2015 versus 2024. Predecessors are Quadro Kepler-M versus Navi II IGP. Successors are Quadro Pascal-M versus Navi III IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins in OpenCL compute tasks. Its 19989 score in that benchmark tops the Radeon 780M by 7.5%. The data also shows its average benchmark score is higher overall at 20480 versus 17588. For workloads that rely on OpenCL, such as certain scientific or professional compute applications, the older discrete GPU holds an advantage. Its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth also means it does not depend on system memory performance, which could be a benefit in scenarios where the host system has slow or limited shared memory.

The AMD Radeon 780M wins decisively in Vulkan. Its 33683 score is 37.7% ahead of the Quadro M4000M. This points to modern gaming and graphics workloads that use Vulkan as a clear win for AMD. The Radeon also has a massive boost clock advantage, reaching 2900 MHz versus 1013 MHz, and significantly higher theoretical throughput in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32. Its 12 ray tracing cores give it capabilities the Quadro lacks entirely. The 15 W power draw makes it suitable for thin and light systems, whereas the 100 W Quadro requires a more substantial cooling and power delivery solution. The Radeon is also an active product with a 2024 release date, while the Quadro is end-of-life from 2015.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear generational split. The AMD Radeon 780M is the stronger choice for modern graphics APIs, particularly Vulkan, where it leads by 37.7%. Its ray tracing support, higher clock speeds, and dramatically better power efficiency at 15 W make it the obvious pick for current and future software that leverages these features. The Quadro M4000M, despite being end-of-life, still holds a 7.5% edge in OpenCL and a higher overall average benchmark score of 20480. For users running legacy compute workloads that depend on OpenCL and a dedicated memory pool, the NVIDIA part remains viable.

The percentile rankings support this interpretation: the Quadro sits at 65th percentile versus 61st for the Radeon. But the head-to-head Vulkan result is too large to ignore. Any workload that can use Vulkan will favor the AMD part by a wide margin. The Radeon's FP32 throughput of 8.909 TFLOPS is more than triple the Quadro's 2.593 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate and texture rate are also higher despite fewer shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The architecture is simply more efficient per unit.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M if your priority is OpenCL compute performance and you need dedicated VRAM with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. Choose the AMD Radeon 780M if you want modern features like ray tracing, Vulkan performance, and a 15 W power envelope. The recorded benchmark data awards one win to each side, so the decision rests on which workload matters more to you. For most modern use cases, the Radeon 780M is the forward-looking option. For legacy compute tasks, the Quadro M4000M still holds its ground.