AMD Radeon HD 8730M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The benchmark data shows a complete mismatch. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is in a different performance class entirely, leading the only shared benchmark by a 221% margin. While the AMD Radeon HD 8730M holds a slightly higher percentile ranking against all GPUs (34th vs. 32nd), that ranking is based on a single OpenCL test, whereas the Quadro M4000’s broader benchmark suite reveals a far more capable and versatile part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single directly comparable data point is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the AMD Radeon HD 8730M manages 5,955. This translates to a 221% advantage for the Quadro M4000 — more than triple the raw compute output in this API.

This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational gap. The Quadro M4000’s score aligns with its position among rivals that average around 5,467 points, placing it within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 and within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. The HD 8730M, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5,957) and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929), with a delta of 0% and 0.4% respectively. In practical terms, the Quadro M4000 is delivering OpenCL performance that is roughly three times that of the HD 8730M’s closest competitors.

The Quadro M4000 also has a much richer benchmark profile. Beyond OpenCL, it scores 24,640 in Geekbench Vulkan, 6,680 in Passmark G3D, and 2,660 in Passmark GPU Compute. Its DirectX results range from 26 in DirectX 12 to 113 in DirectX 9, with intermediate scores of 33 in DirectX 10 and 49 in DirectX 11. The HD 8730M has no corresponding data for any of these tests, meaning the Quadro M4000 is the only part with verifiable multi-API performance. The wins column reflects this: 1 win for the Quadro M4000, 0 for the HD 8730M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a 28 nm manufacturing process at TSMC, but that is where the similarities end. The Quadro M4000 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, a design from the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. The HD 8730M uses AMD’s older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Mars chip, part of the Solar System (HD 8700M) generation.

The transistor counts highlight the scale difference. The Quadro M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.1M / mm². The HD 8730M has just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M / mm². The Quadro M4000 has over five times the transistor budget and a die more than five times larger.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The Quadro M4000 features 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The HD 8730M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s for the Quadro M4000, versus 5.600 GPixel/s and 16.80 GTexel/s for the HD 8730M. Floating-point performance is equally lopsided: the Quadro M4000 delivers 2.573 TFLOPS FP32, while the HD 8730M manages 537.6 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The Quadro M4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 8730M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with a much lower 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Clock behavior differs as well: the HD 8730M has explicit base and boost clocks of 650 MHz and 700 MHz, while the Quadro M4000’s core clocks are not listed, though its memory runs at 1502 MHz (or 6 Gbps effective) compared to the HD 8730M’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

API support shows the Quadro M4000 as the more modern part. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 8730M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, but only Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the HD 8730M is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 221% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8730M’s score of 5,955.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M4000’s average benchmark score of 5,467 is within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483) and 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501). The HD 8730M’s average of 5,955 is virtually tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5,957, 0% delta) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929).

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, but with differences. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the Quadro M4000 reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 8730M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8730M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, compared to 384 on the HD 8730M. The Quadro M4000 also has 104 TMUs and 64 ROPs, versus 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the HD 8730M.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as End-of-life. The Quadro M4000 was released in 2015 and the HD 8730M in 2013.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | AMD Radeon HD 8730M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM204 | Mars |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 650 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,664 | 384 |

| TMUs | 104 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 5.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 16.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.573 TFLOPS | 537.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not listed |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Not listed |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015 | 2013 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior GPU in every measurable category with shared data. Its 221% lead in OpenCL is compounded by massive advantages in raw compute resources: 1,664 vs. 384 shading units, 2.573 TFLOPS vs. 537.6 GFLOPS FP32, and 192.3 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 also supports a higher tier of DirectX (12_1 vs. 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs. 1.2.170).

The HD 8730M’s only statistical edge is its 34th percentile ranking versus the Quadro M4000’s 32nd, but this is a function of the limited benchmark data available for the AMD part, which has only a single OpenCL score. When considering the full picture — including the Quadro M4000’s additional Vulkan, DirectX 9/10/11/12, and Passmark results — the NVIDIA card is the clear choice for any workload requiring compute or graphics performance.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins outright in every benchmark category where both have data. It is the only one of the two with verified scores for Vulkan (24,640), Passmark G3D (6,680), Passmark GPU Compute (2,660), and the DirectX 9-12 suite (scores from 26 to 113). Its larger memory pool (8 GB vs. 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s) make it suitable for memory-intensive tasks like high-resolution rendering or large dataset processing. Its support for 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface positions it for multi-display professional workstations.

AMD Radeon HD 8730M has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison. Its only favorable statistic is the 34th percentile versus the Quadro M4000’s 32nd, which is misleading given the sparse data. The HD 8730M’s lower power footprint (no TDP listed, but far fewer transistors at 950 million vs. 5,200 million) and smaller die (77 mm² vs. 398 mm²) suggest it is designed for low-power or mobile environments, but the benchmark evidence does not support any performance advantage. In any task where the two are compared directly, the Quadro M4000 is the only rational choice based on the numbers.