AMD Radeon HD 8870M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M and the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from 2013, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process but implementing very different architectures. The data in the FACT PACK shows a single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, where the Quadro wins by a meaningful margin, yet the Radeon holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs. This creates an interesting split between raw compute performance and overall standing, which this analysis explores through the available specifications and benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the clear winner in the only direct benchmark comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 9149 against the Radeon’s 8462, a delta of -7.5% from the Radeon’s perspective — meaning the Quadro is roughly 8% faster in this compute workload. This is the sole head-to-head victory recorded in the data, giving NVIDIA a 1-0 win count in direct comparisons. The Quadro’s advantage here likely stems from its substantially larger GPU: it packs 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, versus the Radeon’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro also doubles the memory bus width (256-bit vs 128-bit) and memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), which can be decisive in memory-heavy OpenCL tasks.

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M, however, wins on the broader percentile scale. It sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 41st percentile. This means that despite losing the direct head-to-head, the Radeon is ranked higher relative to the entire GPU landscape. Its average benchmark score of 8462 is also higher than the Quadro’s average of 7906 — a notable gap of over 500 points. This is because the Quadro’s average is dragged down by its additional Geekbench Metal score of 6662, which is far below its OpenCL result. So, the Radeon wins on consistency across benchmark types, while the Quadro wins on peak OpenCL performance.

In terms of use-case split, the data suggests the Quadro is better suited for compute-heavy applications that leverage OpenCL, especially those that can exploit its larger memory pool and wider bus. The Radeon, with its higher percentile and better average score, appears more balanced across different GPU workloads, even if it lacks the Quadro’s raw peak in the one test recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures despite sharing the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M uses the Venus chip with a GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Solar System generation (HD 8800M). It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, in contrast, uses the GK104 chip with a Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx100M). It packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, which is more than double the transistor count and nearly 2.4 times the die size, but with a slightly lower transistor density of 12.0 million per mm² — essentially identical density given the larger die.

The core configuration differences are stark. The Quadro has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the Radeon’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the Quadro an 80% advantage in shading units, a 140% advantage in TMUs, and a 100% advantage in ROPs. These raw counts translate directly to higher theoretical fill rates: the Quadro achieves 16.94 GPixel/s pixel rate and 67.78 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the Radeon’s 12.40 GPixel/s and 31.00 GTexel/s. In terms of floating-point compute, the Quadro delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Radeon delivers 992.0 GFLOPS — a 64% advantage for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Radeon runs at a 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. The Radeon’s higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller core, but not enough to overcome the Quadro’s massive resource advantage. Memory clocks also differ significantly: the Radeon runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). However, the Quadro’s wider 256-bit bus gives it 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Radeon’s 72.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus — a 42% advantage for NVIDIA.

Feature support is another differentiator. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) — a slight edge for AMD in API version. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro has a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175) versus the Radeon’s 1.2.170. The Quadro also has a listed TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon’s TDP and form factor are not specified in the data. The Quadro’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile workstation nature.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are clear. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8462. This gives the Quadro a 7.5% win, which is a substantial margin in a compute benchmark. The deltaPct is listed as -7.5% from the Radeon’s perspective, confirming the Quadro’s advantage.

This 687-point gap is significant, but it is not overwhelming. For context, the Radeon’s nearest rivals in the overall database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8458 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon 880M at 8436 (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427 (0.4% behind). The Quadro’s 9149 OpenCL score would place it well above all of these, but its average score is pulled down by its Metal result.

The Quadro’s Metal score of 6662 is notable because it is far lower than its OpenCL score — a 2487-point difference. This suggests the Quadro is highly optimized for OpenCL but performs poorly in Apple’s Metal API. The Radeon has no Metal benchmark recorded, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible. However, the Radeon’s average score of 8462 exactly matches its OpenCL score, indicating it has only that one benchmark result. The Quadro’s average of 7906 is the mean of 9149 and 6662, showing how the Metal score drags down its overall standing.

Looking at the broader rival context, the Quadro’s closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7925, -0.2% from the Quadro), the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8039, -1.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8040, -1.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053, -1.8%). This means the Quadro’s average score is within 2% of several older NVIDIA parts. The Radeon, meanwhile, is within 1% of the MX330, Radeon 880M, and GTX 675MX, with the Intel Arc A380 being 1.1% ahead. These rival comparisons show that both GPUs sit in a crowded mid-range performance band, with the Quadro’s OpenCL peak being its standout feature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins with a score of 9149 against the AMD Radeon HD 8870M’s 8462, a 7.5% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon HD 8870M have any advantage over the Quadro K4100M?

A: Yes. The Radeon has a higher percentile ranking (43rd vs 41st) and a higher average benchmark score (8462 vs 7906), driven by the Quadro’s low Metal score of 6662.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro has 1152 shading units, nearly double the Radeon’s 640. The Quadro also has 96 TMUs vs 40, and 32 ROPs vs 16.

Q: Do they support different DirectX versions?

A: Yes. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Quadro has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Radeon has 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die. Their transistor densities are nearly identical at 12.0M and 12.2M per mm² respectively.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the stronger performer in the one benchmark where both are measured. Its 9149 OpenCL score is 7.5% higher than the Radeon’s 8462, and its hardware specifications are overwhelmingly superior — more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, double the memory, and 42% more bandwidth. For any workload that relies heavily on OpenCL compute, the Quadro is the clear choice.

However, the Radeon HD 8870M holds a higher percentile ranking (43rd vs 41st) and a higher average score (8462 vs 7906) because the Quadro’s Metal benchmark result is a weak point. If a user’s software uses Metal, the Quadro’s 6662 score is far below the Radeon’s OpenCL result, making the Radeon the safer option for mixed-API environments. The Radeon also has a slightly newer DirectX version (12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)), which could matter for compatibility.

The Quadro’s launch MSRP was 1,499 USD, reflecting its professional workstation positioning, while the Radeon has no listed launch MSRP. The Quadro’s 100 W TDP and MXM Module form factor indicate it is designed for high-performance mobile workstations, whereas the Radeon’s power and form factor details are not provided. For users prioritizing peak OpenCL performance and maximum memory capacity, the Quadro is the winner. For users who need balanced performance across multiple APIs or who value a higher overall GPU ranking, the Radeon is the more prudent pick despite losing the head-to-head.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 8870M | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Chip | Venus | GK104 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Solar System (HD 8800M) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 775 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 40 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.40 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.00 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 992.0 GFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

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

| Display Outputs | Not specified | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2013-03-31 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | London | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Gem System | Quadro Maxwell-M |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 1,499 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 8462 | 9149 |

| Geekbench Metal | Not tested | 6662 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 8462 | 7906 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 43 | 41 |