AMD Radeon HD 8730M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and AMD Radeon HD 8730M are two end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions from 2013, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node but targeting very different market segments. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Quadro K4000 offering substantially higher compute and memory throughput, while the Radeon HD 8730M counters with a more efficient power envelope and PCIe 3.0 support. Below is a breakdown of their benchmark results, architectural choices, and specification differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 delivers a decisive victory. The Quadro K4000 scores 6,816 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5,955 points — a 14.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is a substantial margin in raw compute workloads, reflecting the K4000’s larger silicon and higher shading unit count. In percentile terms, both cards sit at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they occupy a similar tier in the broader performance spectrum, but the head-to-head delta shows the K4000 is the stronger of the two.

The Quadro K4000’s average benchmark score across all tests is 5,982, which is slightly higher than the HD 8730M’s 5,955 average. Interestingly, the K4000’s own OpenCL score of 6,816 is well above its average, suggesting that OpenCL workloads are a particular strength for the NVIDIA card. In contrast, the HD 8730M’s only recorded benchmark is OpenCL, so its average and that specific test are identical. The K4000 also has additional benchmark data points — Geekbench Metal at 4,166 and Geekbench Vulkan at 6,964 — which the HD 8730M lacks entirely, indicating a broader software ecosystem support.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both cards show tight clustering. The Quadro K4000 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (delta -0.1%) and AMD FirePro W4100 (delta -0.1%), while sitting slightly above the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (delta 0.2%) and just below the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (delta -0.2%). The HD 8730M shows a similar pattern: it is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and 0.4% of the Intel UHD Graphics 730, while trailing the Radeon HD 8750M by 0.3% and the Quadro K4000 by 0.5%. These tiny deltas suggest that both cards are firmly in the mid-range performance tier, with the K4000 holding a slight edge over the HD 8730M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is significant. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK106 chip, while the AMD Radeon HD 8730M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Mars chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the silicon budgets differ enormously. The K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The HD 8730M, by contrast, has just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 12.3M per mm². This smaller die and lower transistor count explain the HD 8730M’s significantly lower compute throughput.

Shading resources tell a clear story: the Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, while the HD 8730M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That is exactly double the shading units and 2.67x the TMUs in favor of NVIDIA. The pixel rate difference is even more pronounced — 12.96 GPixel/s for the K4000 versus 5.600 GPixel/s for the HD 8730M — while texture rate stands at 51.84 GTexel/s versus 16.80 GTexel/s. FP32 compute output is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the K4000 versus 537.6 GFLOPS for the HD 8730M, a 2.3x advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Quadro K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 8730M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth — less than a quarter of the K4000’s memory throughput. Clock speeds also differ: the HD 8730M has a base clock of 650 MHz and a boost clock of 700 MHz, while the K4000 lists no base or boost figures but runs its memory at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) versus the HD 8730M’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins decisively, scoring 6,816 versus 5,955 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 14.5% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: They are close but not identical. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan (1.2.175 for K4000, 1.2.170 for HD 8730M). DirectX support differs: the K4000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), while the HD 8730M lists DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro K4000 offers 134.8 GB/s from 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus. The HD 8730M offers 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus — a 4.7x bandwidth gap.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, exactly double the 384 found on the Radeon HD 8730M.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The Quadro K4000 was released on February 28, 2013, and the HD 8730M on March 31, 2013.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 2,540 million transistors, while the HD 8730M has 950 million — a difference of 1,590 million transistors.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro K4000 uses the Kepler architecture (GK106 chip) from NVIDIA, while the HD 8730M uses GCN 1.0 (Mars chip) from AMD. Process node is identical at 28 nm TSMC, but the die size is 221 mm² versus 77 mm², and transistor counts are 2,540 million versus 950 million. Transistor density is slightly higher on the AMD part: 12.3M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm².

Memory configuration is a major split: 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs; the HD 8730M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 5.600 GPixel/s; texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 16.80 GTexel/s; FP32 compute is 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 537.6 GFLOPS. The HD 8730M has explicit base (650 MHz) and boost (700 MHz) clocks, while the K4000 lists only memory clock at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). TDP is 80 W for the K4000, with no TDP listed for the HD 8730M. The K4000 is single-slot, requires a 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU; the HD 8730M lists no slot width, power connectors, or PSU recommendation. Bus interface also differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K4000 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the HD 8730M. Display outputs are only listed for the K4000 (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2). The K4000 has dimensions of 241 mm length and 111 mm height; the HD 8730M has none listed. Launch MSRP for the K4000 was 1,269 USD; the HD 8730M has no MSRP. Release dates are one month apart, and their generations differ: Quadro Kepler (Kx000) versus Solar System (HD 8700M). Predecessors and successors also differ: the K4000 follows Quadro Fermi and leads to Quadro Maxwell, while the HD 8730M follows London and leads to Gem System.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the stronger GPU in every compute and memory metric measured. Its 14.5% OpenCL lead over the HD 8730M is backed by a 2.3x advantage in FP32 throughput, a 4.7x advantage in memory bandwidth, and double the shading units. The K4000 also shows broader benchmark coverage, with Metal and Vulkan scores that the HD 8730M cannot match. Its 80 W TDP and single-slot design, along with a 250 W PSU recommendation, make it a more demanding but still manageable workstation component.

The AMD Radeon HD 8730M does have a few redeeming qualities from the spec sheet. It offers a smaller die (77 mm² versus 221 mm²) and fewer transistors (950 million versus 2,540 million), which likely translates to lower power draw, though no TDP is listed. It also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a newer bus standard than the K4000’s PCIe 2.0 x16. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is slightly newer than the K4000’s DirectX 12 (11_0). However, none of these advantages show up in actual benchmark results, where the HD 8730M trails in every recorded test.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the Quadro K4000 for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, higher memory bandwidth, and a more complete feature set including display outputs and Vulkan support. The Radeon HD 8730M is the choice only if the smaller physical footprint, newer PCIe interface, or lower transistor count are decisive factors — but benchmark results give no reason to prefer it on performance grounds. The Quadro K4000 wins the head-to-head with 1 win to 0, and the numbers back that up across the board.