AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two mobile professional GPUs, with each claiming one head-to-head benchmark victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M posts a score of 19989, which is 8.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's 18268. This is a meaningful margin in compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, and it aligns with the M4000M's higher raw FP32 throughput of 2.593 TFLOPS compared to 2.437 TFLOPS for the AMD part.

The reverse happens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 21832 against 20971 for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, a 4.1% advantage for AMD. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose architectural efficiencies, and the newer GCN 5.0 design appears to extract better performance here despite the M4000M's nominal compute advantage. The delta is smaller in Vulkan than NVIDIA's OpenCL lead, but it is still a clear win for AMD in that specific test.

Looking at aggregate scores, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 23250 across its three recorded benchmarks (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), placing it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, with only OpenCL and Vulkan results recorded, averages 20480 and sits in the 65th percentile. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 23250 versus 20480, a gap of roughly 13.5%. However, part of this comes from the AMD card's Geekbench Metal score of 29650, which has no comparable Metal result for the NVIDIA card. The AMD part's OpenCL score of 18268 is notably lower than its Metal and Vulkan scores, suggesting API-specific performance characteristics rather than a uniformly dominant GPU.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for each card's standing. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's closest competitor is the NVIDIA P106-100 with an average score of 23249, a delta of 0%. Other near neighbors include the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23273 (-0.1%), the AMD Radeon R9 M290X at 23276 (-0.1%), and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 at 23315 (-0.3%). For the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (-0.3%), followed by the Intel Arc B570 at 20556 (-0.4%), Intel Arc A750 at 20582 (-0.5%), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X at 20662 (-0.9%). Both cards sit at the edge of their respective performance clusters, with the AMD part slightly below the RX 6600M and the NVIDIA part slightly below the RTX 3070 Mobile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 uses the Vega 12 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means AMD's transistors are physically smaller, which typically allows for higher density and potentially better power efficiency per unit of compute.

The NVIDIA chip is fully documented in the database: it packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip's transistor count and die size are not recorded, so a direct density comparison is impossible, but the 14 nm node suggests a denser layout for the Vega 12. Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part runs at an 815 MHz base clock with a 1190 MHz boost, a substantial 375 MHz uplift. The NVIDIA part starts higher at 975 MHz but boosts only to 1013 MHz, a modest 38 MHz increase. The AMD card's wide boost range indicates more aggressive dynamic clocking behavior, while the NVIDIA card runs closer to a fixed frequency.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, delivering 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The AMD card has nearly double the memory bandwidth: 307.2 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. This is a decisive advantage for memory-intensive workloads like large framebuffers or compute kernels that stream data. However, the NVIDIA card has a wider memory interface in terms of raw bit width per memory chip configuration, and its GDDR5 clock runs at a higher effective data rate.

Shader and texture resources differ in configuration. The AMD part has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA leads in all three counts: 25% more shaders, 25% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. This explains the NVIDIA card's higher pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s versus 38.08 GPixel/s and texture rate of 81.04 GTexel/s versus 76.16 GTexel/s. The AMD card's FP32 throughput of 2.437 TFLOPS trails the NVIDIA's 2.593 TFLOPS, consistent with the shader count difference. The AMD card does support FP16 at 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card has no recorded FP16 capability, a notable feature for mixed-precision compute workloads.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has a TDP of 75 W and is an integrated GPU (IGP) package, meaning it is designed to be soldered directly onto a board. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor, which is a removable, standardized mobile GPU card. The NVIDIA module has no power connectors listed, drawing power through the MXM slot. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The AMD card is from the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation, while the NVIDIA card belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) series. API support is similar: both reach DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 for AMD.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to different strengths for each card. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins the OpenCL head-to-head by 8.6%, and it has higher shader counts, more ROPs, and greater raw FP32 and pixel throughput. Its 100 W TDP and MXM form factor make it a conventional mobile workstation solution. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, despite losing OpenCL, wins Vulkan by 4.1%, offers nearly double the memory bandwidth (307.2 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s), supports FP16 compute, runs on a smaller 14 nm process, and draws 25% less power at 75 W. The AMD card's average benchmark score of 23250 is 13.5% higher than the NVIDIA's 20480, and its 68th percentile rank versus 65th confirms a higher overall standing in the database.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute and traditional rasterization throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is the stronger choice based on the head-to-head result. For users targeting Vulkan workloads, memory-bandwidth-bound tasks, or power-constrained systems, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has the advantage. The AMD card's integrated form factor suits tightly integrated laptop designs, while the NVIDIA MXM module offers serviceability and upgrades. Neither card is dominant across all metrics, but the AMD part's higher aggregate score and lower power draw give it a slight edge in overall database ranking.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins with a score of 19989, beating the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's 18268 by 8.6%.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 wins with a score of 21832, beating the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M's 20971 by 4.1%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 23250, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M averages 20480, a gap of about 13.5% in AMD's favor.

Q: How do memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has 307.2 GB/s bandwidth from 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has 160.4 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the TDP and form factor differences?

A: The AMD card has a 75 W TDP and uses an IGP form factor, while the NVIDIA card has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 ranks in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M ranks in the 65th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins in OpenCL compute, where its 8.6% head-to-head lead is backed by higher shading unit count (1280 versus 1024), double the ROPs (64 versus 32), and higher FP32 throughput (2.593 TFLOPS versus 2.437 TFLOPS). Its pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s and texture rate of 81.04 GTexel/s exceed the AMD card's 38.08 GPixel/s and 76.16 GTexel/s, making it the stronger choice for fill-rate-bound rendering and traditional compute APIs. The 100 W TDP and MXM form factor also indicate a card designed for higher sustained power delivery, which can help in long-running workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 wins in Vulkan, where its 4.1% advantage reflects architectural efficiency in the newer GCN 5.0 design. Its memory bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s is 91.6% higher than the NVIDIA card's 160.4 GB/s, a decisive edge for workloads that move large datasets, such as high-resolution textures, compute buffers, or machine learning inference. The 75 W TDP makes it more suitable for thinner, lower-power laptops, and the 14 nm process node suggests better power efficiency per transistor. FP16 support at 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1) is an additional capability absent from the NVIDIA card, benefiting mixed-precision compute.

For API-specific use cases: OpenCL users should favor NVIDIA, Vulkan users should favor AMD. For memory-bound tasks, the AMD card's HBM2 bandwidth is the clear winner. For raw shader throughput and pixel processing, the NVIDIA card's higher counts win. For power-sensitive designs, the AMD card's 75 W TDP versus 100 W gives it the advantage. The database also shows the AMD card has a higher average score and percentile, suggesting broader overall capability despite losing the OpenCL test.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M |

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

| Chip | Vega 12 | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 5,200 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 398 mm² |

| Base clock | 815 MHz | 975 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1190 MHz | 1013 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 1024 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 307.2 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1024 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 64 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 38.08 GPixel/s | 64.83 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 76.16 GTexel/s | 81.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.437 TFLOPS | 2.593 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 75 W | 100 W |

| Slot width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Vulkan support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release date | 2018-11-13 | 2015-08-17 |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Not recorded | Quadro Pascal-M |

The AMD card is newer by over three years, uses a smaller process node, has higher memory bandwidth, supports FP16, and draws less power. The NVIDIA card has more shaders, TMUs, ROPs, higher clocks at base, higher FP32 throughput, and a higher pixel rate. Both have 4 GB of memory, PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces, DirectX 12 (12_1), and OpenGL 4.6 support. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded.