AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains exactly one direct head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and the AMD Radeon R5 M240: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that benchmark, the Quadro K4100M produced a score of 9149, while the Radeon R5 M240 reached 6975. The delta of 31.2 percent in favor of the NVIDIA part is substantial, and it represents the only measured win in this pairing. The Quadro K4100M takes the sole head-to-head victory, with a margin that dwarfs the differences seen between either card and its own nearest rivals.

To put that 31.2 percent gap into context, consider how each card sits relative to its own competition. The Quadro K4100M averages 7906 across all recorded benchmarks, and its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460, averages 7925, a delta of only 0.2 percent. The next nearest rivals, the Quadro P5000 and GeForce GTX 880M, sit just 1.7 percent higher. So the Quadro K4100M is effectively at parity with a cluster of other GPUs, yet it beats the Radeon R5 M240 by a margin over thirty times larger than that parity gap. The Radeon R5 M240, averaging 6975, sits 0.4 percent above the GeForce GTX 675M and 2.1 percent above the AMD FirePro M5100, but it trails the Quadro K4100M by a huge margin.

The absence of a second head-to-head test is itself informative. The Radeon R5 M240 has no recorded Geekbench Metal result, while the Quadro K4100M scores 6662 in that test. That missing data point means the comparison rests entirely on OpenCL compute performance, where the NVIDIA part demonstrates a clear advantage. The data shows a one-sided contest: one win for NVIDIA, zero for AMD, and no scenario where the Radeon pulls ahead in a direct measurement.

These numbers also highlight a broader pattern. The Quadro K4100M's average benchmark score of 7906 places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R5 M240's 6975 lands in the 39th percentile. The percentile difference is modest, only two points, yet the head-to-head delta is 31.2 percent. That suggests the Radeon's relatively low percentile is not merely a matter of being slightly slower; it is fundamentally outclassed in the compute workload measured here.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU won the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M won the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9149 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M240's 6975, a 31.2 percent advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro K4100M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K4100M averages 7906, which is 0.2 percent below the GeForce GTX 460 (7925), 1.7 percent below the Quadro P5000 (8039), and 1.7 percent below the GeForce GTX 880M (8040).

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

A: The Radeon R5 M240 averages 6975, which is 0.4 percent above the GeForce GTX 675M (6946), 0.7 percent below the GeForce GTX 680M (7023), and 0.8 percent below the NVIDIA T600 (7035).

Q: Is there a Metal benchmark for the Radeon R5 M240?

A: No, the database only records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 6975 for the Radeon R5 M240. The Quadro K4100M has both an OpenCL score of 9149 and a Metal score of 6662.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro K4100M sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M240 sits in the 39th percentile, a difference of only two percentile points.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each GPU have in head-to-head testing?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has one win, and the AMD Radeon R5 M240 has zero wins in the recorded head-to-head data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural families. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, a 28 nm design fabricated by TSMC. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both share the same process node and foundry, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts diverge sharply. The Quadro K4100M packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The Radeon R5 M240 contains only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per mm². The Radeon's die is over five times smaller, but its density is marginally higher, indicating a much simpler design overall.

Shading unit counts reflect the same gap. The Quadro K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. On paper, the Quadro has 3.6 times the shading units, 4.8 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. Neither GPU includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so both rely entirely on conventional rasterization and compute pipelines.

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The Quadro K4100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M240 uses 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. That bandwidth difference is a factor of 7.1, and it stems from both the memory type and the bus width. The Quadro's memory clock is listed as 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, while the Radeon's is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

The specified compute rates reinforce the hierarchy. The Quadro K4100M achieves a pixel rate of 16.94 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 67.78 GTexel/s, and 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The Radeon R5 M240 manages 8.240 GPixel/s, 20.60 GTexel/s, and 659.2 GFLOPS. Every one of those figures is lower on the AMD part, with FP32 being roughly 2.5 times lower.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro K4100M has a base clock of 706 MHz and a boost clock of 706 MHz, meaning no dynamic range. The Radeon R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, so it runs at higher raw clock speeds despite its smaller compute footprint.

Memory capacity differs by a factor of four: 4 GB on the Quadro versus 1 GB on the Radeon. Memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3, and the bus width is 256 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clock is 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, while the Radeon's is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

The TDP for the Quadro K4100M is 100 W, while the Radeon R5 M240 has no recorded TDP in the database. The Quadro is an MXM module with no power connectors and an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The Radeon uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for the Quadro and not recorded for the Radeon.

The API support differs slightly. The Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The OpenGL versions match, but the DirectX and Vulkan versions are marginally different.

Release dates also separate the pair. The Quadro K4100M launched on July 22, 2013, with a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD. The Radeon R5 M240 launched on September 17, 2014, with no recorded launch MSRP. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The Radeon's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are marked end-of-life.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins the only direct comparison, and it wins by a 31.2 percent margin in OpenCL compute. The Radeon R5 M240 has no recorded win in any head-to-head test. The Quadro also holds a higher average benchmark score, 7906 versus 6975, and a higher percentile ranking, 41st versus 39th.

The Quadro K4100M is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL workloads. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus provides 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 7.1 times the Radeon's 14.40 GB/s. Its FP32 throughput of 1.627 TFLOPS is roughly 2.5 times the Radeon's 659.2 GFLOPS. The pixel and texture rates are also substantially higher.

The Radeon R5 M240 offers no advantage in any recorded metric. Its higher base clock of 1000 MHz versus 706 MHz does not translate into better benchmark results. Its smaller die and lower transistor count might suggest lower power consumption, but no TDP is recorded for the AMD part, so that cannot be confirmed from the data.

The verdict from the database is simple: the Quadro K4100M outperforms the Radeon R5 M240 in the one test where they are directly compared, and it does so by a wide margin. The Radeon's only consolation is that it sits in the 39th percentile, just two points below the Quadro's 41st, but that proximity in ranking does not survive actual head-to-head testing.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 31.2 percent advantage. It also wins on every specified compute metric: pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, and bus width. The Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth make it the stronger choice for compute-intensive tasks such as OpenCL rendering or general-purpose GPU workloads.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins no recorded benchmarks against the Quadro K4100M. It does have a higher base and boost clock, 1000 MHz and 1030 MHz versus 706 MHz for both clocks on the Quadro, and a slightly higher transistor density, 12.3M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm². It also supports a marginally newer DirectX version, 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0), and a slightly older Vulkan version, 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175.

The Radeon's wins are purely on paper and do not appear in any measured performance test. Its smaller die size of 56 mm² versus 294 mm² could imply lower manufacturing complexity, but the database records no thermal or power figures for the Radeon to confirm any efficiency benefit. The Quadro K4100M is the pick for raw compute and memory throughput, while the Radeon R5 M240 has no demonstrated performance win in the recorded data.