AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from 2013, but they target different segments of the market. The data available for direct comparison is limited to a single OpenCL benchmark, yet the specification sheets reveal substantial architectural and performance gaps that define their respective positions in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the dataset is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9,149 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447 points. This produces a 22.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a decisive margin that places it in a clearly higher performance tier. The Quadro K4100M’s victory here is not marginal; it is a substantial lead that aligns with its larger silicon and higher resource counts.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective rivals reinforces the gap. The Quadro K4100M’s average benchmark score is 7,906, placing it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7,925) and 1.7% behind both the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8,039) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8,040). It also sits 1.8% behind the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053). These are all close, competitive numbers, indicating the K4100M performs in the same league as those desktop and high-end mobile parts despite its age.

The Radeon HD 8850M, by contrast, has an average score of 7,447, which puts it 0.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472) by 0.3% and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550) by 1.4%. While these deltas are small, they show the 8850M is positioned against integrated and entry-level discrete solutions, not against the higher-tier parts that surround the K4100M. The 22.9% delta in the head-to-head test is therefore consistent with the broader pattern: the K4100M occupies a higher performance bracket entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7,906, compared to the AMD Radeon HD 8850M’s 7,447. This represents a difference of 459 points in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the performance gap in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro K4100M scores 9,149 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447. The NVIDIA GPU leads by 22.9%, which is a substantial margin for a single compute test.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K4100M is within 1.8% of the GeForce GTX 460, Quadro P5000, GeForce GTX 880M, and GeForce GTX 650 Ti, with deltas ranging from -0.2% to -1.8%. The 8850M is within 1.4% of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, Radeon R7 350, GeForce GTX 1650, and Intel Arc A310, with deltas between -1.4% and +0.3%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K4100M ranks in the 41st percentile, while the Radeon HD 8850M ranks in the 40th percentile. The difference is only one percentile point, despite the larger absolute score gap.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The K4100M features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 8850M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has double the memory capacity and 60% more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro K4100M contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Radeon HD 8850M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip uses over twice as many transistors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the faster GPU. Its 22.9% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, combined with a higher average score (7,906 vs. 7,447) and a higher percentile ranking (41st vs. 40th), establishes it as the superior compute performer. The K4100M’s nearest rivals are all GeForce GTX and Quadro parts with scores above 7,900, while the 8850M competes against integrated graphics and low-end discrete cards in the 7,400–7,500 range. Anyone requiring the maximum compute throughput from these two options should choose the Quadro K4100M.

The Radeon HD 8850M, however, is not without its merits. Its smaller die (123 mm² vs. 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,500 million vs. 3,540 million) suggest a more power-efficient design, though no TDP figure is listed for the AMD part to confirm this. The 8850M also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a slightly newer feature level than the K4100M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). For workloads that prioritize these newer API features over raw compute, the 8850M holds a niche advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Radeon HD 8850M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, the NVIDIA part has roughly double the resources. Clock speeds also favor the K4100M: it runs at a base and boost of 706 MHz, whereas the 8850M operates at 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. The memory subsystem follows the same pattern, with the K4100M offering 4 GB at 3.2 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus, versus 2 GB at 4 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus for the 8850M. Bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the NVIDIA part and 64.00 GB/s for the AMD part.

Rates and throughput figures mirror these differences. The K4100M achieves 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s, while the 8850M reaches 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.627 TFLOPS for the K4100M versus 800.0 GFLOPS for the 8850M. The bus interface also differs: the K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0) with an MXM Module slot, while the 8850M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The K4100M has a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD; no launch price is listed for the 8850M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Quadro K4100M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It uses 3,540 million transistors across a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The Radeon HD 8850M is based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a slightly higher density of 12.2 million per mm². Both share the same process node and foundry, yet the NVIDIA chip is more than twice the physical size.

Feature support reveals further differences. The K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD GPU has a newer DirectX feature level, but the NVIDIA GPU has a slightly newer Vulkan version. Neither GPU includes ray tracing or tensor cores, as both are from an era before those technologies existed. The K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, while no TDP is listed for the 8850M. The K4100M also has no power connectors and uses a portable-device-dependent display output, whereas the 8850M lists no display outputs or power connector details at all.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins in every measurable performance category. It is 22.9% ahead in OpenCL compute, has a higher average score, and offers superior pixel rate (16.94 vs. 10.00 GPixel/s), texture rate (67.78 vs. 25.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (1.627 vs. 0.800 TFLOPS). Its larger memory pool (4 GB vs. 2 GB) and wider bus (256-bit vs. 128-bit) make it the choice for workloads that demand high bandwidth and large working sets. The K4100M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 and GTX 880M, confirming it belongs to a performance class far above the 8850M’s integrated-and-entry-level competition.

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins only in specific feature-level comparisons. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is newer than the K4100M’s DirectX 12 (11_0), which may matter for applications that require that exact feature set. Its smaller die and lower transistor count suggest a more compact and potentially more power-efficient implementation, though no TDP data exists to verify this. The 8850M also has a slightly higher transistor density (12.2M / mm² vs. 12.0M / mm²), indicating a marginally more efficient use of silicon area. For systems constrained by physical space or those prioritizing the latest DirectX 11_1 features, the 8850M has a narrow edge. For every other metric, the Quadro K4100M is the definitive choice.