AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the Geekbench OpenCL test. This is a compute-focused workload that measures raw shader throughput, and the results show a clear separation between the two mobile graphics processors.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 manages 4,577 points. That is a 13.9% advantage for the Quadro 4000M. In practical terms, this means the NVIDIA part completes OpenCL compute tasks noticeably faster, which matters for applications that offload parallel workloads to the GPU.

Looking at the database's nearest rival comparisons adds context to that gap. The Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5,211. Its closest competitors are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,236 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5,161 (1% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 5,154 (1.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 5,284 (1.4% higher). The Quadro 4000M is essentially in the middle of that pack, trading blows with mobile parts from both brands.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230, by contrast, holds the 27th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4,577. Its nearest rivals are a strange mix: the AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4,569 (0.2% lower), the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4,560 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 4,621 (0.9% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4,628 (1.1% higher). That rival list is notable because the R5 M230 is bracketed by both entry-level integrated graphics and much more powerful discrete cards, which reflects its position as a low-end part whose OpenCL score happens to land in a crowded region of the database.

The 13.9% delta between the two review subjects is significant but not overwhelming. The Quadro 4000M is clearly the faster compute part, but the R5 M230 is not drastically behind in this single metric. Still, a 634-point absolute difference (5,211 versus 4,577) is enough to matter in GPU-accelerated workloads that scale with raw throughput. The Quadro 4000M wins the only recorded benchmark, giving it a 1-0 lead in head-to-head results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211, which is 13.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M230's 4,577.

Q: How does the Quadro 4000M compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is within 1.4% of all four nearest rivals. The GeForce 940M is 1.4% faster, the GTX 760M is 0.5% faster, the R7 M260X is 1% slower, and the Quadro K3100M is 1.1% slower.

Q: Is the Radeon R5 M230 competitive with the Quadro 4000M's peer group?

A: No. The R5 M230's nearest rivals are the RX 560, Intel HD Graphics P530, Quadro M3000M, and GTX 970M, all within 1.1% of its score. Its 4,577 score places it in a completely different performance tier than the Quadro 4000M's 5,211.

Q: What percentile does each GPU occupy in the database?

A: The Quadro 4000M is at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, while the R5 M230 has 320. Despite the small difference, the Quadro 4000M also has 56 texture mapping units versus 20 on the R5 M230, and 32 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro 4000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M230 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built for different purposes. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip based on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 332 mm² and packs 1,950 million transistors, which works out to a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. Fermi was designed for compute-heavy professional workloads, and the large die reflects that focus.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0, also fabricated by TSMC but on a much more modern 28 nm process. The die is tiny at 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. That is more than double the density of the Fermi chip, a direct result of the smaller process node. The architecture is also newer, with GCN 1.0 designed for efficiency and scalable compute.

Memory architecture differences are stark. The Quadro 4000M runs GDDR5 at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M230 runs DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.00 GB/s. That is a five-fold difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily favors the Quadro 4000M in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 638.4 GFLOPS. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 12.20 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 390.4 GFLOPS. The Quadro 4000M leads in every compute and rasterization metric, with a particularly large advantage in texture fillrate and pixel throughput.

API support differs in one key area. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 M230 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are mobile parts with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the laptop manufacturer controls the actual ports.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Quadro 4000M is rated at a 100 W TDP and comes in an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, meaning it draws power through the MXM interface. The R5 M230 has no TDP listed and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), which typically means lower power consumption and a soldered-on-board design. Both parts are end-of-life, with the Quadro 4000M released in February 2011 and the R5 M230 released in January 2014.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the faster GPU. It wins the only recorded benchmark by 13.9%, and its architectural specifications support that result. The Quadro 4000M has more TMUs (56 versus 20), more ROPs (32 versus 8), five times the memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s), and significantly higher texture and pixel fillrates. Its FP32 throughput of 638.4 GFLOPS is 63% higher than the R5 M230's 390.4 GFLOPS.

The Radeon R5 M230 is not without merits, but they are not compute merits. Its GCN 1.0 architecture on 28 nm gives it a much smaller die (56 mm² versus 332 mm²) and higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²), which suggests better power efficiency. It also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, something the Quadro 4000M cannot claim. But in raw performance, the data is unambiguous.

For a user choosing between these two for GPU-accelerated compute or demanding graphics work, the Quadro 4000M is the pick. Its 30th percentile ranking versus the R5 M230's 27th percentile, combined with the 13.9% benchmark lead, makes it the stronger performer. The R5 M230 makes sense only if the workload is light, Vulkan support is required, or power efficiency is the priority. The Quadro 4000M is the more capable part in every measurable performance category.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. Here is where they diverge:

Chip and process: The Quadro 4000M uses GF104 (Fermi) on 40 nm, while the R5 M230 uses Jet (GCN 1.0) on 28 nm. Both are TSMC parts.

Transistors and die size: The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die (5.9M per mm²). The R5 M230 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die (12.3M per mm²).

Memory: The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M230 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Shading units, TMUs, ROPs: The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Pixel and texture rates: The Quadro 4000M achieves 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s. The R5 M230 achieves 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance: The Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS. The R5 M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor: The Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors. The R5 M230 has no TDP listed, is an IGP, and has no power connector data.

Bus interface: The Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). The R5 M230 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support: The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan. The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Release date: The Quadro 4000M launched in February 2011. The R5 M230 launched in January 2014. Both are end-of-life.

Benchmark score: The Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 in Geekbench OpenCL. The R5 M230 scores 4,577.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000M wins in every performance category recorded in the database. Its 13.9% Geekbench OpenCL lead makes it the better choice for compute workloads such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, and data processing. Its 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 16.00 GB/s gives it a massive advantage in bandwidth-bound tasks. The 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 20 and 8 respectively make it far stronger in texture-heavy and pixel-heavy graphics work. The 638.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 390.4 GFLOPS means it handles floating-point math substantially faster.

The Radeon R5 M230 wins in efficiency-oriented categories. Its 28 nm process and smaller die (56 mm² versus 332 mm²) suggest lower power consumption, though the database does not list a TDP for the R5 M230. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support is a genuine advantage for modern applications that use Vulkan, since the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support at all. The newer GCN 1.0 architecture also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the Quadro 4000M's DirectX 12 (11_0), a minor but real API difference. The PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is more modern than the MXM-B (3.0) connection, though the practical impact depends on the host laptop.

The use-case split is clear. Pick the Quadro 4000M for compute performance, memory bandwidth, and rasterization throughput. Pick the R5 M230 for Vulkan compatibility, newer API support, and likely lower power draw. The Quadro 4000M is the stronger GPU by the numbers; the R5 M230 is the more modern architecture with a narrower feature set advantage.