AMD Radeon HD 8750M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the AMD Radeon HD 8750M. The AMD part scores 5970 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M trails with 5211 points. This translates to a 14.6% advantage for the AMD chip, a substantial lead in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

When placed against the broader field, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M occupies the 30th percentile. The delta is modest in percentile terms, but the 759-point gap in raw score is significant. The AMD chip’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 points (a 0.2% difference), the Quadro K620M at 5957 points (0.2% behind), and the Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 points (0.3% behind). This places the HD 8750M in a tight cluster of mobile chips, but it still manages to edge out all of them.

For the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, its nearest competitors are the GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 points (0.5% ahead), the Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 points (1% behind), and the Quadro K3100M at 5154 points (1.1% behind). The 4000M’s score of 5211 is competitive within its own peer group, but it clearly loses ground to the HD 8750M. The benchmark data shows a single decisive win for AMD, with no test where the NVIDIA part takes the lead. This makes the head-to-head comparison straightforward: the AMD Radeon HD 8750M is the faster GPU in compute-oriented OpenCL tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing eras. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Mars chip, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, built on an older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process gap is reflected in the physical characteristics: the AMD chip packs 950 million transistors into a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip, by contrast, contains 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser AMD process node gives it an efficiency advantage in terms of silicon area.

In terms of core configuration, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has fewer shading units at 336, but compensates with more texture units at 56 and a significantly higher ROP count of 32. This difference in ROPs suggests the NVIDIA part is better equipped for fill-rate-bound scenarios, while the AMD chip leans on its higher shader count for compute workloads. The pixel rates are nearly identical: 6.600 GPixel/s for AMD and 6.650 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. However, the texture rate favors NVIDIA at 26.60 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s for AMD, a 34% difference in favor of the Fermi part.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That is nearly three times the memory bandwidth on the NVIDIA side, which likely helps in texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads. The memory clocks reflect this: the AMD chip runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the NVIDIA part operates at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The GDDR5 type and wider bus give NVIDIA the clear bandwidth advantage.

Another key architectural difference is the API support. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but lacks Vulkan support entirely. This makes the AMD part more future-proof for modern applications that rely on Vulkan for cross-platform graphics and compute.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the AMD Radeon HD 8750M a clear win in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is a compute-oriented workload that stresses shader and ALU throughput. The AMD chip’s 384 shading units and higher clock speeds (base 775 MHz, boost 825 MHz) contribute to its 633.6 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, despite having fewer shading units, still manages 638.4 GFLOPS of FP32, which is slightly higher. Yet in the actual OpenCL test, the AMD part wins by 14.6%. This suggests that the GCN architecture is more efficient at translating raw FLOPS into real-world compute performance, or that the test favors the AMD design.

For the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, the wins are not reflected in the benchmark scores but in the hardware specifications. The 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, double the ROP count (32 vs 8), and higher texture rate (26.60 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s) make it better suited for tasks that are not compute-bound. In professional graphics workloads such as CAD rendering, texture filtering, or high-resolution display output, the NVIDIA part’s memory bandwidth and fill-rate strengths could translate into better performance, even if the OpenCL score lags. The 2 GB frame buffer also allows for larger textures and higher resolution buffers than the 1 GB on the AMD card.

The AMD Radeon HD 8750M wins where compute throughput and modern API support matter. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support is a significant advantage for newer games and applications that use Vulkan for low-overhead rendering. The 28 nm process node also means lower power consumption and heat generation, though the database does not record a TDP for the AMD chip, while the NVIDIA part is rated at 100 W. The AMD chip’s 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while lower, is sufficient for its class and the chip’s smaller die size suggests it is designed for efficiency.

In summary, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M is the winner in compute and modern API scenarios, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has the edge in memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and raw fill-rate capabilities. The benchmark data only confirms the compute advantage for AMD, but the specification sheet tells a more nuanced story where each GPU has distinct strengths.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The table below highlights these differences based on the recorded data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 8750M | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | Mars | GF104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 775 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 825 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 384 | 336 |

| TMUs | 24 | 56 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 6.650 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 26.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 633.6 GFLOPS | 638.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | Not specified | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | None |

| Release Date | 2013-02-25 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | London | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Gem System | Quadro Kepler-M |

The most striking differences are in the memory subsystem (DDR3 vs GDDR5, 128-bit vs 256-bit bus), the process node (28 nm vs 40 nm), and the transistor count (950 million vs 1,950 million). The NVIDIA part has double the memory capacity and nearly three times the bandwidth. The AMD chip is built on a more advanced process, resulting in a smaller die and higher density. The shading unit counts are close, but NVIDIA has many more TMUs and ROPs. The FP32 performance is nearly identical, yet the AMD chip wins the OpenCL benchmark by a wide margin, indicating architectural efficiency differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211. The AMD part is 14.6% faster in this test.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA part has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, compared to 28.80 GB/s for the AMD card with DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon HD 8750M supports Vulkan, specifically version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units. The AMD chip has 48 more shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s, which is higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8750M’s 19.80 GTexel/s.