AMD Radeon 890M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and AMD Radeon 890M represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing: a dedicated professional workstation card from 2017 versus a modern integrated graphics processor embedded in a mobile chip. The benchmark data shows a clear split, with the Quadro P4000 winning 8 out of 10 head-to-head comparisons, yet the Radeon 890M securing surprising victories in specific workloads that hint at its architectural efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 dominates the majority of benchmark categories, establishing itself as the stronger overall performer. Its most decisive victory comes in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it scores 1115 against the Radeon 890M's 590, a massive 89% advantage. This gap indicates that the Quadro's dedicated memory subsystem and higher raw throughput give it a significant edge in modern, API-heavy gaming and rendering workloads.

The Quadro also excels in legacy DirectX performance. In PassMark DirectX 9, it scores 181 versus 97, an 86.6% lead, while in DirectX 10 it doubles the Radeon's score (66 versus 33, a 100% increase). These results suggest that the Quadro's driver maturity and hardware design are particularly well-suited for older API environments, which remain relevant in professional CAD and simulation software.

The PassMark G3D test reinforces the Quadro's overall graphics superiority, with a score of 11466 compared to 8076, a 42% margin. This comprehensive 3D benchmark aggregates multiple rendering scenarios, and the Quadro's victory here indicates broad-based strength across various graphical tasks. The GPU compute test also goes to NVIDIA, with 4913 versus 4157, an 18.2% advantage, showing better general-purpose compute performance.

The AMD Radeon 890M wins two specific tests, revealing its unique strengths. Its most notable victory is in PassMark G2D, scoring 979 against 786, a 19.7% improvement. This 2D-focused test measures desktop rendering, image manipulation, and video playback acceleration, where the Radeon's modern architecture and higher boost clocks provide a clear advantage. The Radeon also edges out the Quadro in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 37254 versus 36212, a modest 2.8% lead that demonstrates respectable compute capabilities despite its integrated nature.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The Quadro P4000 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon 890M employs AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture on a much more advanced 4 nm node, also from TSMC. This process difference is critical: the Radeon packs 34,000 million transistors into a 233 mm² die, achieving a density of 145.9M transistors per mm², whereas the Quadro's GP104 chip contains only 7,200 million transistors across a larger 314 mm² die, with a density of 22.9M per mm².

The Radeon 890M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) within the Strix Point mobile chip, drawing just 15 W of power with no dedicated power connectors. In contrast, the Quadro P4000 is a single-slot, 105 W discrete card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply. This fundamental difference in power envelope explains why the Radeon can achieve competitive results despite having fewer resources.

The Radeon 890M features 16 ray tracing cores, a capability the Pascal-based Quadro completely lacks. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Radeon's newer architecture provides features that the 2017-era Quadro cannot offer. The Radeon also uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," whereas the Quadro has dedicated 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 243.3 GB/s.

Clock speeds tell another story of architectural evolution. The Radeon 890M boosts to 2900 MHz from a 400 MHz base, while the Quadro runs at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. Despite this massive clock advantage, the Radeon's 1024 shading units produce 5.939 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, only slightly ahead of the Quadro's 1792 shading units delivering 5.304 TFLOPS. The Radeon also handles FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (5.939 TFLOPS), while the Quadro's FP16 is a minuscule 82.88 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M leads with 5.939 TFLOPS compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P4000's 5.304 TFLOPS, a difference of approximately 12% in the Radeon's favor.

Q: How does memory configuration differ between these two?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon 890M uses system-shared memory with bus width and bandwidth described as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 890M supports ray tracing, featuring 16 dedicated RT cores. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has no RT cores, as it predates NVIDIA's RTX architecture.

Q: What are the TDP differences and what does that imply?

A: The Radeon 890M draws just 15 W as an integrated processor, while the Quadro P4000 requires 105 W with a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Radeon's efficiency is remarkable given its competitive compute numbers.

Q: Which GPU performs better in DirectX 9 workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is dramatically faster, scoring 181 versus 97 in PassMark DirectX 9, an 86.6% advantage that suggests superior legacy API support.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9665 across all tests, placing it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 890M averages 9210, sitting in the 45th percentile.

Specification Differences

The process node is a major differentiator: the Quadro P4000 uses a 16 nm process, while the Radeon 890M is built on 4 nm. Transistor counts differ enormously, with the Radeon's 34,000 million versus the Quadro's 7,200 million, and die size also varies (233 mm² for AMD, 314 mm² for NVIDIA). Transistor density favors the Radeon at 145.9M per mm², versus 22.9M for the Quadro.

Clock speeds show the Radeon's advantage: 400 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost, compared to 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost for the Quadro. Memory configurations are entirely different, with the Quadro using dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon relies on system-shared memory. The Quadro has more shading units (1792 vs 1024), more TMUs (112 vs 64), and more ROPs (64 vs 32), yet the Radeon has 16 RT cores to the Quadro's none.

The Radeon's FP16 performance is 5.939 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), vastly exceeding the Quadro's 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). Power requirements diverge sharply: 15 W for the Radeon versus 105 W for the Quadro. The Quadro is a PCIe 3.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8 with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro was released in February 2017 and is end-of-life, while the Radeon launched in July 2024 and remains active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic performance gap appears in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the Quadro P4000 scores 1115 against the Radeon's 590, an 89% lead. This modern DirectX 12 benchmark stresses current rendering techniques, and the Quadro's dedicated memory bandwidth of 243.3 GB/s appears to be far more effective than the Radeon's system-shared memory in this scenario.

The PassMark DirectX 10 test shows the Quadro doubling the Radeon's output, with scores of 66 versus 33, a 100% delta. Similarly, DirectX 9 results show 181 versus 97, an 86.6% advantage. These legacy API tests highlight the Quadro's strength in older software environments, which are still prevalent in professional and industrial applications.

In the comprehensive PassMark G3D test, the Quadro wins 11466 to 8076, a 42% margin that reflects overall 3D rendering capability. The GPU compute test also favors NVIDIA, with 4913 versus 4157, an 18.2% difference. Even in Vulkan, the Quadro edges ahead with 41786 versus 40808, a 2.4% margin.

The Radeon 890M's wins are narrower but significant. Its PassMark G2D score of 979 versus 786 represents a 19.7% advantage, showing superior 2D and desktop acceleration. The Geekbench OpenCL result is closer, with the Radeon scoring 37254 versus 36212, a 2.8% lead that demonstrates its compute efficiency despite being an integrated solution.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the clear performance winner, taking 8 of 10 benchmarks with decisive margins in most categories. Its 89% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad and 100% advantage in DirectX 10 show that for demanding 3D workloads, particularly in professional applications that rely on dedicated graphics memory, the Quadro is the superior choice. Its average benchmark score of 9665 places it ahead of the Radeon's 9210, and its 47th percentile ranking versus the Radeon's 45th confirms its overall edge.

However, the AMD Radeon 890M should not be dismissed. Its 19.7% victory in 2D performance and 2.8% lead in OpenCL compute, combined with its 15 W power draw, make it an exceptionally efficient option for mobile and integrated scenarios. The Radeon's 5.939 TFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the Quadro's, and its 16 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support future-proof it for modern gaming features that the Quadro cannot handle.

For users requiring maximum raw graphics performance in professional CAD, simulation, or content creation, the Quadro P4000's benchmark dominance makes it the data-backed choice. For those prioritizing power efficiency, portability, and modern feature support like ray tracing, the Radeon 890M offers compelling advantages that its two benchmark wins only partially capture. The Quadro wins where it matters most for traditional GPU tasks, but the Radeon's architectural modernity suggests it will age better as software increasingly leverages features like ray tracing and advanced compute that the older Pascal architecture simply cannot provide.