AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M represent two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics, and the benchmark data shows a clear, though perhaps surprising, winner. In the single recorded OpenCL benchmark, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 16.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M's score of 5986. This places the R5 M240 in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the K4000M sits in the 34th percentile. The data indicates that for raw compute workloads, the newer, smaller AMD chip outperforms the older, larger NVIDIA professional part.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the measured data, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 is the superior choice for general compute tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6975 not only beats the K4000M but also places it in close competition with significantly more powerful-sounding parts. The R5 M240 is a mere 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and 0.7% behind the GTX 680M, showing that its performance is competitive with higher-tier gaming GPUs of its era. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, with its score of 5986, is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 and the desktop Quadro K4000, and it is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M.

For users whose primary workload is OpenCL compute, the R5 M240 wins decisively. Its 16.5% lead over the K4000M is substantial and indicates a real-world performance advantage. The K4000M's professional branding does not translate to a compute advantage in this test. The data suggests that the R5 M240 is the better pick for compute-heavy applications, while the K4000M, despite its lower score, offers a different feature set that may be relevant for specific professional use cases, though its performance deficit is clear.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the "Jet" chip, packing 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, using the Kepler architecture with the "GK104" chip, is a much larger and more complex design, containing 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a slightly lower transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter.

The most striking difference is in the compute resources. The K4000M has 960 shading units, three times the 320 found in the R5 M240. It also has 80 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 20, and 32 raster output units (ROPs) versus 8. Despite this massive hardware advantage, the R5 M240 achieves a higher benchmark score. This is largely due to clock speeds. The R5 M240 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the K4000M is locked at a much lower 601 MHz for both base and boost. This clock speed difference explains how the smaller AMD chip can compete.

The memory subsystems are also worlds apart. The R5 M240 uses a 64-bit bus with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory running at 1800 Mbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The K4000M uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 2.8 Gbps effective, providing a much higher 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000M's memory advantage is enormous, but it is not enough to overcome its clock speed deficit in the OpenCL test.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins in the only benchmark conducted. Its 16.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the sole data point for comparison. This suggests that the R5 M240 is the better choice for compute-oriented applications that rely on OpenCL, such as general-purpose GPU computing, certain rendering tasks, and physics simulations. Its higher clock speeds allow its fewer shading units to process more instructions per second.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M does not win any recorded benchmark. However, its architectural strengths point to potential advantages in scenarios not captured by the data. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus provides significantly higher memory bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and memory-intensive professional applications like CAD, 3D modeling, and video editing. The K4000M also has a TDP of 100 W, which, while higher than the unspecified TDP of the R5 M240, indicates it is designed for more sustained heavy workloads. The data does not measure these potential advantages, so they remain theoretical based on the specification differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 16.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M's score of 5986.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R5 M240 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M240 is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M, 0.7% behind the GTX 680M, and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA T600. It is 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K4000M is exactly tied with the AMD FirePro W4100, is 0.1% ahead of the desktop NVIDIA Quadro K4000, and is 0.2% behind both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 has 320.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a memory bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 has a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a definitive win for the AMD Radeon R5 M240. The AMD chip scored 6975, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scored 5986. This is a delta of 16.5% in favor of the R5 M240, a significant margin that cannot be dismissed.

This result is paradoxical given the specifications. The K4000M has 3x the shading units, 4x the TMUs, 4x the ROPs, and over 6x the memory bandwidth. Yet, the R5 M240 wins. The explanation lies in the clock speeds. The R5 M240's base clock of 1000 MHz is 66% higher than the K4000M's 601 MHz. In compute workloads, clock speed can be just as important as core count, and the R5 M240's ability to run its 320 shading units at a much higher frequency allows it to execute more work overall.

The performance context is also revealing. The R5 M240's score of 6975 puts it in the same performance class as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M, which scores 7023, and the NVIDIA T600, which scores 7035. These are all within a 0.8% range. The K4000M's score of 5986, on the other hand, places it alongside the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982. The R5 M240 is not just faster than the K4000M; it is competing in a higher performance tier entirely.

Specification Differences

The specifications of these two GPUs are almost entirely different. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses Kepler. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M240's clock speeds are 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the K4000M is locked at 601 MHz for both.

Memory is another major differentiator. The R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.60 GB/s. The R5 M240 has a transistor count of 690 million on a 56 mm² die, while the K4000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The R5 M240 is listed with a TDP of null, while the K4000M has a TDP of 100 W. The R5 M240 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the K4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, with the R5 M240 at Vulkan 1.2.170 and the K4000M at Vulkan 1.2.175. The R5 M240 was released on 2014-09-17, while the K4000M was released on 2012-05-31.