AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single directly comparable benchmark between these two cards, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6,210. That is a delta of 67.5 percent in favor of the Quadro, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The AMD card does not win a single head-to-head comparison in the recorded data; the tally stands at 0 wins for the HD 6950 and 1 win for the M4000.

The magnitude of this gap is worth pausing on. A 67.5 percent difference is not a marginal edge, it is a generational chasm. The HD 6950 sits in the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M4000 rests at the 32nd percentile. On the surface, those percentile rankings look close, but the OpenCL result tells a different story: the M4000's compute lead is enormous despite the similar overall percentile placement. The percentile figures reflect the full benchmark suite, and the M4000 has many more recorded tests, which drags its average down. The single shared test, however, is unambiguous.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card adds context. The HD 6950's closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W600, which scores 6,223, a delta of only 0.2 percent. The HD 6950 is also within 0.9 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both scoring 6,270. The Quadro K620, at 6,282, is 1.1 percent ahead. This cluster of scores, all within roughly a point or two of 6,200, shows that the HD 6950's OpenCL result is competitive with a broad range of cards from different eras, but none of them approach the M4000's 19,118.

For the M4000, its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, a 0.3 percent delta), the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444, 0.4 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501, 0.6 percent), and the GeForce MX130 (5,508, 0.7 percent). These are all mobile or entry-level parts, and the M4000's average score of 5,467 places it in that tier. But its OpenCL score of 19,118 is several times higher than any of those rivals' averages, underscoring how much the M4000's other benchmark results, particularly the lower DirectX and Passmark scores, pull its average down.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split: the M4000 wins in compute-oriented workloads, while the HD 6950 has no recorded wins at all. The Geekbench OpenCL test is the only head-to-head, and the M4000 dominates it. For users prioritizing raw floating-point throughput, the M4000's 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the HD 6950's 2.253 TFLOPS is a 14 percent advantage, and the benchmark confirms that theoretical edge translates into real-world compute superiority.

The M4000 also holds advantages in several specification-driven categories that the benchmarks only partially capture. Its pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s is nearly double the HD 6950's 25.60 GPixel/s, which suggests a major lead in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s versus 70.40 GTexel/s is a smaller but still meaningful 14 percent advantage. Memory bandwidth also favors the M4000 at 192.3 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s, a 20 percent edge that matters for large textures or compute kernels that saturate memory.

The HD 6950, with no head-to-head wins, does not have a single use case where the recorded data shows it outperforming the M4000. Its only benchmark score, 6,210 in OpenCL, is less than a third of the M4000's result. In terms of API support, the HD 6950 tops out at DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4, while the M4000 reaches DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. For modern workloads that leverage newer APIs, the M4000 is the only viable option between the two.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 6,210 for the AMD Radeon HD 6950, a 67.5 percent difference in favor of the M4000.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity?

A: The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the HD 6950 has 2 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the M4000's bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s exceeds the HD 6950's 160.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The HD 6950 has a TDP of 200 W and requires a 550 W power supply with two 6-pin connectors. The M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, needs a 300 W power supply, and uses a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The M4000 supports DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support.

Q: How do the cards compare in physical size?

A: The HD 6950 is 286 mm long, 126 mm tall, and 42 mm wide, occupying a dual-slot form factor. The M4000 is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, in a single-slot design.

Q: What is the process node and transistor count for each?

A: The HD 6950 uses a 40 nm process with 2,640 million transistors on a 389 mm² die. The M4000 uses a 28 nm process with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. Memory capacity is a stark contrast: the HD 6950 offers 2 GB, while the M4000 provides 8 GB. Both use GDDR5 and a 256-bit bus, but the memory clock differs, with the HD 6950 at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the M4000 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). This yields bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s for the AMD card and 192.3 GB/s for the NVIDIA card.

The compute resources also diverge. The HD 6950 has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The M4000's shader count is 18 percent higher, but its ROP count is double. Pixel rate reflects this: 25.60 GPixel/s for the HD 6950 versus 49.47 GPixel/s for the M4000. Texture rate is 70.40 GTexel/s versus 80.39 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 2.253 TFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications show the M4000 as the more efficient design. The HD 6950 draws 200 W and needs a 550 W PSU, while the M4000 draws 120 W and needs only 300 W. The HD 6950 is dual-slot with two 6-pin connectors, while the M4000 is single-slot with one 6-pin connector. Dimensions also differ: the HD 6950 is 286 mm by 126 mm by 42 mm, while the M4000 is 241 mm by 111 mm, with no width recorded.

Bus interface and display outputs are different as well. The HD 6950 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The M4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The HD 6950's launch MSRP was 299 USD; the M4000 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The HD 6950 uses AMD's TeraScale 3 architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Northern Islands generation (HD 6900). It was released in December 2010 and is based on the Cayman chip. The M4000 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation (Mx000). Its release date is June 2015, and it uses the GM204 chip.

The process node difference, 40 nm versus 28 nm, is significant. The M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The HD 6950 has 2,640 million transistors on a 389 mm² die, for a density of 6.8M per mm². The M4000 nearly doubles the transistor density, which explains how it achieves higher performance with lower power consumption.

The M4000's Maxwell architecture brings support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 6950's TeraScale 3 architecture is limited to DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The M4000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal, while the HD 6950's predecessor is Evergreen and its successor is Southern Islands. Both cards are marked as end-of-life in the database.

The M4000's 64 ROPs versus the HD 6950's 32 ROPs is a doubling that speaks to a fundamental architectural difference in how each card handles rasterization. The Maxwell 2.0 architecture was designed for efficiency, and the TDP figures confirm this: 120 W for the M4000 versus 200 W for the HD 6950, despite the M4000 having more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and memory.

The Verdict

The database is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior card in every measured category. Its OpenCL score of 19,118 dwarfs the HD 6950's 6,210, and it wins the only head-to-head benchmark by a 67.5 percent margin. It offers more memory, higher bandwidth, double the pixel rate, more shaders, more ROPs, newer API support, and lower power consumption. The M4000 is also physically smaller, single-slot versus dual-slot, and requires a less demanding power supply.

The HD 6950's sole advantage is its launch MSRP of 299 USD, but no performance data in the database justifies choosing it over the M4000. Its 2 GB memory capacity is a fraction of the M4000's 8 GB, and its older architecture lacks DirectX 12 and Vulkan support. For compute workloads, the M4000 is over three times faster in the recorded OpenCL test. For graphics workloads, the M4000's ROP and pixel rate advantages suggest a clear lead in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Users should pick the M4000 if they need modern API support, high compute throughput, or large memory capacity. The data shows no scenario where the HD 6950 comes out ahead. Both cards are end-of-life, so the choice is about legacy systems, but among these two, the M4000 is the only one with competitive performance in the database's measurements. The HD 6950's 36th percentile placement versus the M4000's 32nd is misleading; the single shared benchmark reveals a massive gap that the overall averages obscure due to the M4000's broader test suite. When the recorded data is examined directly, the verdict is clear.