AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs, and it is a clear victory for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points against the AMD Radeon R5 M230's 4,577 points. That is an 8.8% advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is a meaningful gap in synthetic compute workloads. The Quadro 4000 also holds a higher overall standing in the database, sitting at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps contextualize these raw scores. The Quadro 4000's score of 4,979 places it just 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which averages 4,970 points. It also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by 0.4% (that part scores 4,998) and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 by 1% (which scores 4,931). The only rival that beats the Quadro 4000 in this immediate cluster is the AMD Radeon R5 M430, which sits 0.8% higher at 5,018 points. The Quadro 4000 is therefore competing in a very tight band of GPUs where a few dozen points separate the entire group.

The Radeon R5 M230, on the other hand, is clustered around a lower performance tier. Its 4,577 points put it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4,569 points) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4,560 points). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M by 0.9% (that part scores 4,621) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M by 1.1% (which scores 4,628). Notably, the R5 M230's closest rivals are all substantially more capable parts in terms of their market positioning, which suggests the R5 M230 is scraping the bottom of the performance barrel in this benchmark.

The delta between the two cards, 8.8%, is consistent across the board. The Quadro 4000 wins the only recorded benchmark, and it does so by a margin that is neither trivial nor overwhelming. It is a solid, repeatable advantage in OpenCL compute performance. For context, the Quadro 4000's score is 402 points higher than the R5 M230's, which is roughly the same gap that separates the R5 M230 from its nearest rival below it (the RX 560 at 4,569 points). The performance hierarchy is clear: the Quadro 4000 belongs to a higher tier, even if both cards are old, end-of-life parts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a die size of 529 mm², giving it a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the Jet chip, based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a newer 28 nm process. It contains 690 million transistors on a tiny 56 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The R5 M230 is a small, efficient chip; the Quadro 4000 is a large, power-hungry workstation part.

The compute resources are arranged very differently. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R5 M230 has more shading units at 320, but fewer TMUs at 20 and far fewer ROPs at just 8. This explains the performance gap in pixel and texture throughput. The Quadro 4000 achieves a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.20 GTexel/s. The R5 M230 manages only 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s. Despite having more shaders, the R5 M230 is hamstrung by its narrow memory bus and low ROP count.

Memory configurations reinforce this divide. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The R5 M230 also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth with memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). That is a 5.6x difference in memory bandwidth, which is the single largest architectural chasm between these two parts. The R5 M230's 64-bit bus is typical of entry-level mobile GPUs, while the Quadro 4000's 256-bit bus is workstation-class.

The floating-point throughput tells a similar story. The Quadro 4000 delivers 486.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R5 M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS. The Quadro 4000 is roughly 25% ahead in raw FP32, even though it has fewer shaders. Fermi's higher clock efficiency and superior memory subsystem compensate for the lower shader count. The R5 M230's extra shaders do not translate into proportionally higher throughput because the memory bandwidth bottleneck starves them.

Other architectural differences include the bus interface and power delivery. The Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M230 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 142 W TDP, plus a suggested PSU of 300 W. The R5 M230 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, designed for portable devices. The Quadro 4000 measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the R5 M230 has no recorded dimensions because it is integrated.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the faster GPU in every recorded metric. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.8%, has a higher percentile ranking (29th vs 27th), and delivers superior pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, and memory bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 also has a higher average benchmark score of 4,979 versus 4,577 for the R5 M230. If you are choosing purely on compute performance, the Quadro 4000 is the clear pick.

However, the two cards serve entirely different use cases. The Quadro 4000 is a discrete workstation card from 2010, designed for professional environments with its 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, single-slot form factor, and 142 W TDP. The Radeon R5 M230 is a mobile IGP from 2014, integrated into laptops and portable devices, with no standalone dimensions or power requirements. The R5 M230 supports PCIe 3.0, which the Quadro 4000 does not, and it has newer API support including Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan support.

For a desktop workstation where performance is the sole criterion, the Quadro 4000 wins outright. For an integrated laptop solution where the GPU is soldered to the motherboard and power draw is a non-factor, the R5 M230 is the only viable option of the two, simply because the Quadro 4000 cannot be installed in such a system. The R5 M230 also has a newer generation designation (Gem System, R5 M200) and a later release date of 2014-01-06, compared to the Quadro 4000's 2010-11-01 release. Neither card is current, and both are marked end-of-life in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. Key differences are as follows:

• Chip and architecture: NVIDIA GF100 (Fermi) vs AMD Jet (GCN 1.0)
• Process node: 40 nm (TSMC) vs 28 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 3,100 million vs 690 million
• Die size: 529 mm² vs 56 mm²
• Transistor density: 5.9M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²
• Memory type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory bus width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 89.86 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s
• Memory clock: 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) vs 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective)
• Shading units: 256 vs 320
• Texture mapping units: 32 vs 20
• ROP units: 32 vs 8
• Pixel rate: 7.600 GPixel/s vs 4.880 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 15.20 GTexel/s vs 12.20 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 486.4 GFLOPS vs 390.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 142 W vs not recorded
• Slot width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs none
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs none
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• OpenGL support: 4.6 vs 4.6 (identical)
• Vulkan support: not recorded vs 1.2.170
• Release date: 2010-11-01 vs 2014-01-06
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Tesla vs Solar System
• Successor: Quadro Kepler vs Polaris Mobile

The only fields where the two match are memory size (2 GB each) and OpenGL version (4.6 for both). Everything else is different. The Quadro 4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD; the R5 M230 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points, which is 8.8% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M230's 4,577 points.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has 320 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 256.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth on a 256-bit GDDR5 bus. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has only 16.00 GB/s on a 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R5 M230 has recorded Vulkan support, specifically version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 was released on 2014-01-06, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 ranks in the 29th percentile, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 ranks in the 27th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins on every performance metric recorded in the database. It is ahead in Geekbench OpenCL (4,979 vs 4,577), pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s vs 4.880 GPixel/s), texture rate (15.20 GTexel/s vs 12.20 GTexel/s), FP32 compute (486.4 GFLOPS vs 390.4 GFLOPS), and memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s). It also has double the ROP count (32 vs 8) and a wider memory bus (256 bit vs 64 bit). Any workload that depends on memory throughput, pixel fill, or raw compute will favor the Quadro 4000. This makes it the better choice for professional 3D rendering, CAD, or any compute-heavy task that can use OpenCL.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has no benchmark wins in the database. Its advantages are architectural and situational. It has more shading units (320 vs 256), a newer process node (28 nm vs 40 nm), and a much higher transistor density (12.3M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²), which indicates better power efficiency per transistor. It supports PCIe 3.0 and Vulkan 1.2.170, both of which the Quadro 4000 lacks. It is also an IGP, meaning it consumes no additional power beyond what the host system provides, whereas the Quadro 4000 requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU. For a portable device where battery life and heat are the primary constraints, the R5 M230 is the only practical option. For any desktop scenario where performance matters, the Quadro 4000 is the definitive winner.