AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and AMD Radeon R5 M255 are two end-of-life mobile graphics processors aimed at different segments of the laptop market. The Quadro 4000M is a professional workstation part built on the Fermi architecture, while the Radeon R5 M255 is a mainstream consumer chip based on GCN 3.0. The database records a single shared benchmark result, Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA part scores 5211 against 4650 for the AMD part, a delta of 12.1% in favor of the Quadro. This article breaks down the architectural differences, specification gaps, and workload-based strengths of each GPU using only the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650. The Quadro leads by 12.1% in this test.

Q: How do the two compare in overall percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile. The Quadro is two percentile points higher.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Quadro 4000M in the database?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (average score 5236, a 0.5% gap against the Quadro), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284, 1.4% gap), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, 1% gap), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, 1.1% gap).

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Radeon R5 M255?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (average score 4791, a 0.1% gap), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752, 0.8% gap), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844, 1.2% gap), and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727, 1.3% gap).

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a recorded Vulkan API version, listed as 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s, compared to 6.650 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M. The AMD part is higher in this metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The die size is 332 mm², and the chip contains 1,950 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. Fermi was designed for compute-heavy professional workloads, which aligns with the Quadro brand positioning.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip, also from TSMC but on a much smaller 28 nm process. The die is 125 mm², holding 1,550 million transistors, giving a density of 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The smaller process node allows AMD to pack more transistors per area, but the total transistor count is still lower than the Fermi part. GCN 3.0 is a graphics-oriented architecture that also handles compute tasks, though the R5 M255 is positioned as a mainstream mobile part rather than a workstation accelerator.

The transistor density difference is notable: the AMD chip has more than double the density per square millimeter (12.4M versus 5.9M per mm²). This reflects the process generation gap between 40 nm and 28 nm. The foundry is the same, TSMC, but the node difference drives the physical design choices.

The bus interface also differs. The Quadro 4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, which is typical for professional mobile modules that can be swapped or serviced. The Radeon R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, a more common interface for consumer laptops. The Quadro is a removable MXM module, while the Radeon is likely soldered to the motherboard, though the database does not specify slot width for the AMD part.

The API support reflects the architectural gap. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan record. The Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0) and adds Vulkan support, which is significant for modern cross-platform titles and compute APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear win for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M in the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro scores 5211 against 4650 for the Radeon R5 M255, a 12.1% advantage. This suggests that for OpenCL compute workloads, the Quadro has the edge, likely due to its larger memory bus and higher shading unit count relative to its architecture. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile rank (30th versus 28th), which supports the idea that it performs better overall in the database's aggregate metrics.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in raw throughput metrics in some areas, but these do not translate to a benchmark victory. The Radeon has a higher FP32 compute rate at 721.9 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a difference of about 13%. It also has a higher pixel rate at 7.520 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s. The Radeon has more shading units (384 versus 336) and a smaller die with higher transistor density. However, the actual OpenCL score still favors the Quadro, indicating that theoretical throughput does not always align with real-world compute performance.

For gaming or consumer graphics, the Radeon R5 M255 has the architectural advantages: a newer process node, support for DirectX 12 (12_0), and Vulkan support. The Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan. This means the Radeon is better positioned for modern titles that use newer API features. The Quadro, with its workstation heritage, is likely stronger in professional applications that rely on OpenCL, which is exactly what the benchmark shows.

The Radeon also has a distinct edge in memory efficiency per clock. Its memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The Quadro's GDDR5 memory has higher effective bandwidth at 80.00 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s for the Radeon's DDR3. This bandwidth advantage likely contributes to the Quadro's OpenCL win, as compute workloads often depend heavily on memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification category. The process node: the Quadro is 40 nm, the Radeon is 28 nm. The die size: 332 mm² versus 125 mm². Transistor count: 1,950 million versus 1,550 million. Transistor density: 5.9M per mm² versus 12.4M per mm².

The shading units differ: the Quadro has 336, the Radeon has 384. The texture mapping units: 56 for the Quadro versus 24 for the Radeon. The render output units: 32 for the Quadro versus 8 for the Radeon. This is a major difference, as the Quadro has four times the ROP count, which affects pixel fill rate and rasterization efficiency.

The clocks differ significantly differ. The Quadro runs at 925 MHz: the Quadro: 625 MHz, the Quadro 625 MHz (the Quadro 4000M 625 MHz memory clock with 2.5 Gbps effective. The Radeon R5 M255 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 940 MHz, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz and 2 Gbps effective. The Quadro has no base or boost clock recorded.

Memory configuration differs. The Quadro: 2 GB GDDR5, 256 bit bus, 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon: 2 GB DDR3, 128 bit bus, 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 2 GB capacity, but the Quadro's GDDR5 and wider bus provide significantly more bandwidth.

Performance rates differ. The Quadro's pixel rate is 6.650 GPixel/s, the Radeon's is 7.520 GPixel/s. The Quadro's texture rate is 26.60 GTexel/s, the Radeon's is 22.56 GTexel/s. The Quadro's FP32 is 638.4 GFLOPS, the Radeon's is 721.9 GFLOPS. The Radeon also has FP16 support at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power and physical specifications differ. The Quadro has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors. The Radeon has no TDP recorded, no slot width, and no power connector information. The Quadro's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent", while the Radeon has no display output data.

Release dates differ. The Quadro was released on 2011-02-21, while the Radeon was released on 2014-10-11. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The Radeon's predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, and the AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4650. The winner is the Quadro, with a delta of 12.1% over the Radeon. This is the only shared test, so the comparison is narrow but decisive in one direction.

The Quadro's OpenCL score of 5211 places it near several close rivals. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M averages 5236, which is 0.5% higher than the Quadro. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M averages 5284, 1.4% higher. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X averages 5161, 1% lower. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M averages 5154, 1.1% lower. This means the Quadro sits in a tight cluster of mobile GPUs all within roughly one to two percent of each other. The Quadro is competitive with these parts, slightly ahead of the R7 M260X and K3100M, slightly behind the GTX 760M and 940M.

The Radeon R5 M255's OpenCL score of 4650 places it in a different cluster. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which averages 4791, a 0.1% gap. This is an unusual pairing, but the data shows the Radeon and the RTX 3080 12 GB are nearly identical in this test. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 averages 4752, 0.8% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX averages 4844, 1.2% higher. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX averages 4727, 1.3% higher. The Radeon R5 M255 is at the lower end of its rival cluster, trailing all four listed competitors.

The 12.1% delta between the Quadro and the Radeon is substantial in the context of these rival clusters. A 12% performance gap is enough to move a GPU from the bottom of one cluster to the middle of another. The Quadro's score of 5211 is closer to the GeForce GTX 760M and GeForce 940M, both of which are mid-range mobile parts. The Radeon's score of 4650 is closer to entry-level parts like the Radeon R5 M335 and Radeon R8 M445DX.

The Quadro also has a higher average benchmark score across the database: 5211 versus 4788 for the Radeon. This 423-point difference reinforces the head-to-head result. The percentile ranks also differ, with the Quadro at the 30th percentile and the Radeon at the 28th. While both are in the lower half of all GPUs, the Quadro is consistently ahead.

In summary, the recorded data shows a single clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M255 in Geekbench OpenCL by 12.1%, holds a higher percentile rank, and achieves a higher average benchmark score. The Radeon counters with a more modern architecture, higher clocks, more shading units, and better API support, but these advantages do not translate to a win in the only shared benchmark. The Quadro's larger memory bus, higher bandwidth, and higher ROP count likely explain its OpenCL dominance. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the Quadro is the better choice according to the data. For users prioritizing modern API support and higher theoretical pixel throughput, the Radeon has specific advantages, but the benchmark results do not show it winning any recorded test.