AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and AMD Radeon R5 M255 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they occupy completely different design philosophies. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison where the Quadro 4000 wins, but the R5 M255 counters with a broader feature set and a more modern architecture. The Quadro 4000 is a 2010 professional workstation card with a 40 nm Fermi chip, while the R5 M255 is a 2014 mobile chip built on 28 nm GCN 3.0. This is a clash between an old, high-power desktop part and a newer, efficiency-focused mobile GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 takes the only direct benchmark victory in this matchup. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4979 against the R5 M255’s 4650, a 7.1% advantage. This win is significant because it demonstrates that the Quadro’s older Fermi architecture, with its 256 shading units and 32 ROPs, can still outperform a newer part with more raw compute units in certain workloads. The Quadro’s 89.86 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly three times the R5 M255’s 32.00 GB/s, which likely contributes to its OpenCL lead.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in architectural modernity and API support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6, while the Quadro 4000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. The R5 M255 also has a higher FP32 compute rating at 721.9 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro’s 486.4 GFLOPS, and it offers FP16 performance at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro lacks entirely. For any workload that leverages modern APIs or half-precision math, the R5 M255 is the clear choice.

In terms of efficiency, the R5 M255 has no listed TDP, but its 28 nm process node and 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die suggest a much more power-conscious design. The Quadro 4000 is listed at 142 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU, making it a power-hungry desktop card. The R5 M255’s smaller die and newer process give it a transistor density of 12.4M / mm² versus the Quadro’s 5.9M / mm², indicating a more compact and likely cooler-running chip.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650. The Quadro wins by 7.1%.

Q: Do both cards support modern APIs?

A: No. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro 4000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 2 GB of memory, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M255 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with only 32.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, compared to the Quadro 4000’s 256. However, the Quadro has more ROPs (32 vs 8) and more TMUs (32 vs 24).

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro 4000 was released in November 2010, and the R5 M255 in October 2014.

Q: What is the pixel rate of each card?

A: They are nearly identical. The Quadro 4000 has a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s, while the R5 M255 achieves 7.520 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the NVIDIA Quadro 4000. The Quadro scores 4979, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 trails at 4650. This 7.1% delta is a decisive margin, placing the Quadro ahead in raw compute throughput for this specific workload. The Quadro’s nearest rival in this test is the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (0.4% higher), while the R5 M255’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 (0.1% higher). This means the Quadro sits in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M255 sits just below at the 28th percentile.

The performance gap can be attributed to memory bandwidth more than compute units. The Quadro’s 89.86 GB/s bandwidth is 2.8 times higher than the R5 M255’s 32.00 GB/s, which is critical for OpenCL workloads that often stress memory throughput. The R5 M255 does have a higher texture rate at 22.56 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 15.20 GTexel/s, and its FP32 output of 721.9 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro’s 486.4 GFLOPS. Yet, in the actual benchmark, these theoretical advantages did not translate into a win, underscoring the importance of memory bandwidth and driver optimization in real-world OpenCL performance.

The overall average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Quadro 4000 averages 4979, while the R5 M255 averages 4788, a difference of roughly 4%. This puts the Quadro in the 29th percentile and the R5 M255 in the 28th percentile, meaning both are near the bottom of the performance spectrum. The Quadro’s delta against its nearest rival, the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, is only 0.2%, indicating it barely edges out a modern card in this metric. The R5 M255, by contrast, is 1.2% behind the GeForce 940MX, showing it lags behind even a modest modern mobile GPU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ fundamentally in nearly every specification category. The Quadro 4000 uses a 40 nm process node with a massive 529 mm² die containing 3,100 million transistors, while the R5 M255 uses a 28 nm node with a 125 mm² die and 1,550 million transistors. The Quadro’s transistor density is 5.9M / mm², less than half the R5 M255’s 12.4M / mm². Clock speeds differ: the R5 M255 has a base clock of 925 MHz and boost of 940 MHz, while the Quadro has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations are starkly different. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M255 also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with only 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The compute units differ: the Quadro has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The pixel rates are nearly identical at 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 7.520 GPixel/s for the R5 M255, but the texture rates diverge at 15.20 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications also separate them. The Quadro is a single-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, with a TDP of 142 W. The R5 M255 has no TDP, power connector, or slot width listed, indicating it is likely a soldered mobile part. The Quadro measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the R5 M255 has no dimensions listed. The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, while the R5 M255 has no display outputs listed.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip. This is a first-generation compute-focused design from 2010, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. Fermi introduced features like ECC memory support and strong double-precision compute, which made it popular for professional workloads. The Quadro has a 529 mm² die, which is enormous by modern standards, and it supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. Its FP32 performance is 486.4 GFLOPS, and it has no FP16 support.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip, part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. This is a much newer design from 2014, built on a 28 nm process. GCN 3.0 was designed for efficiency and scalability, with a focus on compute and async compute features. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6, making it far more future-proof in terms of API support. Its FP32 performance is 721.9 GFLOPS, and it natively supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which the Quadro cannot do.

The die size and transistor counts reflect the generational leap. The Quadro’s 529 mm² die holds 3,100 million transistors, while the R5 M255’s 125 mm² die holds 1,550 million transistors. This means the R5 M255 packs more than twice the transistor density (12.4M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²), enabling higher clock speeds (925 MHz base vs no listed base clock for the Quadro) and better efficiency. The R5 M255 also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins the only benchmark test, but the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins on architecture and feature support. If you need maximum OpenCL compute performance from these two specific cards, the Quadro 4000 is the choice, delivering a 7.1% higher score. Its 89.86 GB/s memory bandwidth is a decisive advantage, and its 32 ROPs provide strong fill-rate capabilities for certain rendering tasks. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s) and a professional display output configuration with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

However, the R5 M255 is the more capable modern part. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), which the Quadro cannot match, and it offers FP16 compute at 721.9 GFLOPS. Its 384 shading units and 22.56 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the Quadro’s, and its 28 nm process makes it a far more efficient design. For any application that uses modern graphics APIs, half-precision math, or needs to run on a mobile platform, the R5 M255 is the only viable option.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical at 29 for the Quadro and 28 for the R5 M255, meaning neither card is competitive by modern standards. The Quadro’s nearest rival, the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, is only 0.2% behind, while the R5 M255’s closest competitor, the GeForce 940MX, is 1.2% ahead. Both cards are end-of-life and should be considered legacy hardware. Ultimately, the Quadro 4000 wins the benchmark, but the R5 M255 wins the architectural war; the right pick depends entirely on whether raw OpenCL score or modern feature support matters more.