AMD Radeon HD 8790M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8790M and NVIDIA Quadro M4000 are both end-of-life products, but they occupy very different corners of the GPU market. The HD 8790M is a mobile chip from 2013, while the Quadro M4000 is a professional desktop workstation card from 2015. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gulf between them, with the Quadro M4000 winning every common test by a massive margin. This analysis breaks down exactly how large that gap is, where each card’s strengths lie, and which user should consider which product.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite between these two GPUs is limited to just two tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 utterly dominates the AMD Radeon HD 8790M. The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the HD 8790M manages only 5,017. That represents a deltaPct of -73.8% from the AMD card’s perspective, meaning the Quadro M4000 is roughly 3.8 times faster in raw compute workloads. The Vulkan test shows a similar story: the Quadro M4000 hits 24,640, versus 6,365 for the HD 8790M, a -74.2% delta. In both scenarios, the NVIDIA card is the clear winner, and the gap is so wide that the HD 8790M is essentially in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro M4000’s average benchmark score across all its tested workloads is 5,467, which places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The HD 8790M’s average score is 5,691, slightly higher, at the 33rd percentile. This is a curious inversion: despite losing both head-to-head tests by enormous margins, the HD 8790M has a marginally higher average score and percentile ranking. The reason is that the HD 8790M’s average is pulled up by its two strong Geekbench results, while the Quadro M4000’s average is dragged down by its low Passmark scores—particularly a 33 in DirectX 10, 49 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 12, and 113 in DirectX 9. These Passmark numbers are far below what the Geekbench scores suggest, indicating that the Quadro M4000’s performance is heavily workload-dependent.

The nearest rivals data confirms that neither card is a top performer. The HD 8790M’s closest competitor is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, which scores 5,712, a mere 0.4% difference. The Quadro M4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M440, scoring 5,483, also within 0.3%. Both cards sit in a cluster of mid-to-low-end GPUs, but the Quadro M4000’s highs are much higher and its lows much lower.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon HD 8790M uses the Mars chip, based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip, based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both use the same node and foundry, but the similarities end there. The Quadro M4000’s die is massive in comparison: 398 mm² versus 77 mm² for the HD 8790M. Transistor counts tell the same story—the NVIDIA chip packs 5,200 million transistors versus 950 million for the AMD part. This translates to a transistor density of 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro M4000, slightly higher than the HD 8790M’s 12.3M per mm².

Memory configurations are also starkly different. The HD 8790M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), delivering 192.3 GB/s—three times the bandwidth. The compute resources are equally lopsided: the HD 8790M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates reflect this: the Quadro M4000 hits 49.47 GPixel/s and 80.39 GTexel/s, versus 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s for the AMD card. FP32 performance is 2.573 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card.

API support differs as well. The HD 8790M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA card give it a slight edge in modern API compatibility.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark. It is roughly 3.8 times faster in OpenCL and 3.9 times faster in Vulkan. Its 8 GB memory buffer and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth make it far better suited for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is nearly four times the HD 8790M’s output. If raw performance is the sole criterion, the Quadro M4000 is the obvious choice.

However, the HD 8790M is a mobile part—an MXM module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro M4000 is a desktop card requiring a 120 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a full-length 241 mm slot. The HD 8790M is designed for laptops and compact systems, while the Quadro M4000 is a single-slot workstation card with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The choice between them is not just about performance but about form factor and application. The data shows the Quadro M4000 wins on performance, but the HD 8790M wins on portability and low power requirements—though the latter is qualitative, as no TDP is listed for the AMD card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 versus 5,017 for the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, a -73.8% delta for the AMD card.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8790M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 delivers 192.3 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the HD 8790M offers 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but the HD 8790M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a higher feature level.

Q: What are the physical form factors?

A: The HD 8790M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the Quadro M4000 is a Single-slot desktop card with one 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The HD 8790M has an average score of 5,691 versus 5,467 for the Quadro M4000, despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins decisively in compute-heavy and graphics-intensive workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are nearly four times higher than the HD 8790M’s. Its 8 GB frame buffer and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large 3D scenes, professional CAD applications, and GPU compute tasks that require substantial memory. The 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs allow multi-monitor professional setups. Its higher DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.4 support give it better compatibility with modern APIs. The 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate indicate strong rasterization and texturing performance for professional visualization.

The AMD Radeon HD 8790M wins in portability and integration. As an MXM module, it fits into laptops and compact systems where the Quadro M4000’s 241 mm length and 120 W TDP are impossible. It requires no power connectors, making it easier to integrate into power-constrained mobile platforms. Its lower transistor count (950 million) and smaller die (77 mm²) mean lower manufacturing complexity, though no TDP is listed to quantify power draw. In terms of raw benchmark performance, the HD 8790M’s only advantage is its slightly higher average benchmark score (5,691 vs 5,467) and percentile ranking (33rd vs 32nd), driven by its consistent Geekbench results. For a user needing a GPU in a mobile chassis, the HD 8790M is the only viable option in this comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 8790M | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

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

| Chip | Mars | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 398 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1,664 |

| TMUs | 24 | 104 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 49.47 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 120 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-03-31 | 2015-06-28 |

| Length | Not listed | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |