AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two professional mobile GPUs. In the two shared tests recorded in the database, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 decisively outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. The most dramatic gap appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD card scores 52,787 against the NVIDIA card's 19,989. That translates to a 62.1% advantage for AMD, a margin so large that it suggests the two products are operating in entirely different performance tiers despite both targeting professional workloads.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower gap. The Radeon Pro 5700 scores 51,289 while the Quadro M4000M manages 20,971, resulting in a 59.1% delta in AMD's favor. Both results indicate that the AMD architecture handles modern compute APIs with substantially more headroom. The consistency of the margin across both tests, roughly 60% in each case, points to a fundamental throughput advantage rather than an API-specific optimization quirk.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the picture becomes more nuanced. The Quadro M4000M posts an average of 20,480 across its two benchmark entries, while the Radeon Pro 5700 averages 18,189 across its ten recorded tests. This apparent contradiction, where the AMD card wins every head-to-head test yet has a lower average score, stems from the different test portfolios. The Radeon Pro 5700 includes several PassMark tests in its record, including a DirectX 9 score of 143, a DirectX 10 score of 71, a DirectX 11 score of 78, and a DirectX 12 score of 48. These legacy API tests drag down its average, while the Quadro M4000M only has Geekbench entries in its record.

When comparing each card to its nearest rivals in the database, the performance context shifts further. The Quadro M4000M sits within 1% of several modern cards: it trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile by 0.3%, the Intel Arc B570 by 0.4%, the Intel Arc A750 by 0.5%, and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X by 0.9%. This clustering suggests the older Maxwell-based Quadro still delivers competitive raw compute in the Geekbench tests, even against much newer architectures. The Radeon Pro 5700, by contrast, lands within 1.1% of its nearest rivals: it leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile by 0.2%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER by 0.5%, while trailing the AMD Radeon RX 460 by 1% and the Intel Arc A770M by 1.1%.

The percentile rankings reinforce this mixed picture. The Quadro M4000M places in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 5700 sits in the 62nd percentile. Despite losing every direct comparison, the Quadro actually ranks slightly higher against the broader GPU population, likely because its two Geekbench scores are both strong results, whereas the Radeon Pro 5700's PassMark entries include several weak legacy DirectX scores that pull its percentile down.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not support a single universal winner; it depends entirely on which workload and which benchmark suite matters most. For modern compute-heavy tasks using OpenCL or Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is the clear choice. Its 2.6x advantage in OpenCL and 2.4x advantage in Vulkan over the Quadro M4000M represent massive practical differences in rendering, simulation, and general GPU compute throughput.

However, the Quadro M4000M's higher percentile ranking and its tight clustering with much newer GPUs like the RTX 3070 Mobile and Intel Arc B570 suggest it remains remarkably competitive for its age. The data indicates that a professional user working primarily with Geekbench-type workloads might not notice a significant difference between the two, as the Quadro's average score of 20,480 compares favorably to the Radeon Pro 5700's average of 18,189.

The Radeon Pro 5700 wins on raw performance where it matters most, but the Quadro M4000M wins on consistency across the tests it participates in. The database shows 2 wins for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA in direct head-to-head comparisons, yet the percentile data tells a more balanced story. Users prioritizing peak compute performance in modern APIs should choose the AMD card. Users who need a card that performs uniformly well across a broader set of legacy and modern workloads, and who value the higher percentile standing, might prefer the Quadro.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins decisively in every shared benchmark category. Its OpenCL score of 52,787 versus 19,989 for the Quadro M4000M makes it the obvious pick for OpenCL-based compute tasks, which are common in scientific computing, video encoding, and machine learning inference. The Vulkan result of 51,289 versus 20,971 similarly positions AMD as the stronger choice for Vulkan-based rendering engines and modern game development workloads.

The AMD card also demonstrates strengths in areas the Quadro does not even compete in, based on the test portfolio. Its PassMark G3D score of 11,583 and GPU compute score of 4,961 show solid performance in DirectX-era workloads, while its Metal score of 60,126 in Geekbench Metal indicates strong performance in Apple's ecosystem, fitting for a Radeon Pro Mac generation product. The DirectX 9 score of 143 and DirectX 11 score of 78 show reasonable legacy API performance, though the DirectX 12 score of 48 suggests some weakness in the latest Microsoft API.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M's wins are more subtle. It achieves a higher overall percentile ranking at 65 versus AMD's 62, meaning it outperforms a larger fraction of the GPU population. Its average benchmark score of 20,480 exceeds the Radeon Pro 5700's 18,189, indicating better consistency across the tests it does run. The Quadro's nearest rival deltas, all within 1% of the RTX 3070 Mobile and Intel Arc B570, show that this 2015-era card still trades blows with modern mid-range and upper-mid-range GPUs in Geekbench tests. For users running only Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the Quadro M4000M offers a more balanced profile, though at a lower absolute performance level.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute tasks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is significantly faster, scoring 52,787 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M's 19,989, a 62.1% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card beat the AMD card in any benchmark?

A: No, in the two head-to-head tests recorded in the database, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins both. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M records zero wins in direct comparisons.

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

A: The Quadro M4000M sits within 1% of the RTX 3070 Mobile, Intel Arc B570, Intel Arc A750, and Radeon R9 M390X. The Radeon Pro 5700 leads the RTX 3060 Mobile by 0.2% and RTX 2060 SUPER by 0.5%, while trailing the RX 460 by 1% and Arc A770M by 1.1%.

Q: Which card has a better overall standing among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro M4000M ranks in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 5700 ranks in the 62nd percentile, despite the AMD card winning every head-to-head test.

Q: Why does the AMD card have a lower average benchmark score if it wins every comparison?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700's average of 18,189 includes ten tests, several of which are legacy PassMark DirectX tests with low scores, such as 48 in DirectX 12 and 71 in DirectX 10. The Quadro M4000M's average of 20,480 only covers two Geekbench tests, both of which are strong results.

Q: Is the AMD card better for Vulkan-based workloads?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 5700 scores 51,289 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 20,971 for the Quadro M4000M, a 59.1% advantage that makes it the clear choice for Vulkan rendering and compute.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Maxwell architecture was designed for efficiency and compatibility, and the 28 nm node represents the tail end of planar transistor technology.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip contains 10,300 million transistors on a much smaller 251 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 41.0 million per square millimeter. The density advantage is more than threefold, and the RDNA architecture brings significant improvements in instruction-level parallelism and compute throughput per clock.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Quadro M4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1253 MHz for 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5700 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on the same 256-bit bus width, but at 1500 MHz for 12 Gbps effective speed, yielding 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card offers 2.4 times the bandwidth and double the capacity, a critical advantage for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The compute resources also differ substantially. The Quadro M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 81.04 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 2.593 TFLOPS. The Radeon Pro 5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, achieving 86.40 GPixel/s, 194.4 GTexel/s, and 6.221 TFLOPS FP32, plus 12.44 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The AMD card delivers 2.4 times the FP32 throughput and 2.4 times the texture fill rate, while pixel rate is 1.33 times higher.

Neither card includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate or sidestep those specialized units. The power envelopes differ as well: the Quadro M4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, while the Radeon Pro 5700 has a 130 W TDP, uses an IGP form factor, and carries a suggested PSU of 300 W. The bus interfaces also differ, with the Quadro using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Radeon Pro using PCIe 4.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The manufacturing process stands out most: 28 nm for the Quadro M4000M versus 7 nm for the Radeon Pro 5700. Transistor count more than doubles, from 5,200 million to 10,300 million, while die size shrinks from 398 mm² to 251 mm². Transistor density jumps from 13.1M per mm² to 41.0M per mm².

Clock speeds favor AMD significantly. The base clock rises from 975 MHz to 1,243 MHz, and the boost clock from 1,013 MHz to 1,350 MHz. Memory clocks also increase from 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective to 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. Memory capacity doubles from 4 GB GDDR5 to 8 GB GDDR6, while bandwidth more than doubles from 160.4 GB/s to 384.0 GB/s.

The compute pipeline expands substantially: shading units grow from 1,280 to 2,304, TMUs from 80 to 144, while ROPs remain equal at 64. Pixel rate increases from 64.83 to 86.40 GPixel/s, texture rate from 81.04 to 194.4 GTexel/s, and FP32 from 2.593 to 6.221 TFLOPS. The Radeon Pro 5700 adds FP16 capability at 12.44 TFLOPS, which the Quadro M4000M lacks entirely.

Power draw rises from 100 W to 130 W, and the form factor shifts from MXM Module to IGP. The bus interface advances from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro M4000M supports portable device dependent outputs, while the Radeon Pro 5700 has no outputs at all. The suggested PSU appears only for the AMD card at 300 W. Both cards share the same DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support. Release dates sit five years apart: August 2015 for the Quadro M4000M and August 2020 for the Radeon Pro 5700. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.