AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD Radeon R5 M255 occupy completely different performance tiers, and the benchmark data makes that separation unambiguous. The Quadro M4000 delivers a 311.1% higher Geekbench OpenCL score and a 400.3% higher Geekbench Vulkan score than the Radeon R5 M255. In the database's head-to-head comparison, the Quadro M4000 wins both recorded tests, giving it a 2-0 sweep.

The Quadro M4000 is the clear choice for anyone whose workload depends on compute acceleration, professional rendering, or graphics API performance, as its scores place it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M255 sits at the 28th percentile. The Radeon R5 M255 is a much lighter part, and its data suggests it was designed for basic laptop graphics rather than demanding professional tasks. If the choice is between these two, the data points decisively to the Quadro M4000 for any serious use case.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages entirely. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both share the same process node, but their transistor budgets diverge sharply: the Quadro M4000 integrates 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm², while the Radeon R5 M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding 12.4M per mm².

The shading resources tell a similar story. The Quadro M4000 carries 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That is a 4.3x difference in shading units and a 4.3x difference in TMUs, which directly explains the massive throughput gap. The pixel rate for the Quadro M4000 is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s for the Radeon R5 M255, and the texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture reinforces the divergence. The Quadro M4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 has six times the bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The Quadro M4000 also supports a wider PCIe interface, using PCIe 3.0 x16 versus the Radeon R5 M255's PCIe 3.0 x8.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Radeon R5 M255 has recorded base and boost clocks of 925 MHz and 940 MHz, while the Quadro M4000's base and boost clocks are not listed in the database. The memory clock for the Quadro M4000 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed, while the Radeon R5 M255's memory runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The Quadro M4000's FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS, while the Radeon R5 M255 manages 721.9 GFLOPS. The Radeon R5 M255 does have a listed FP16 value of 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro M4000's FP16 figure is not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5467, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 has an average benchmark score of 4788. That is a difference of 679 points in favor of the Quadro M4000.

Q: How does the Quadro M4000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M4000's average score of 5467 places it just 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon 610M (5444), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508). It is essentially trading blows with those parts.

Q: What about the Radeon R5 M255's nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon R5 M255's average score of 4788 is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791), 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752), 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844), and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727). The comparison to the RTX 3080 12 GB is an artifact of similar average scores, not similar performance characteristics.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M4000 delivers 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth from its 8 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The Radeon R5 M255 delivers 32.00 GB/s from its 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro M4000's bandwidth is six times higher.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX support?

A: The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro M4000 lists Vulkan 1.4 while the Radeon R5 M255 lists Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU rating of 300 W. The Radeon R5 M255 has no TDP, power connector, or suggested PSU data recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0 architecture. The Quadro M4000 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the Radeon R5 M255 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro M4000 versus 12.4M per mm² for the Radeon R5 M255.

Memory configuration differs completely: the Quadro M4000 has 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon R5 M255 has 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000's memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon R5 M255's is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the Radeon R5 M255.

Compute rates diverge as well: the Quadro M4000 achieves 2.573 TFLOPS FP32, 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Radeon R5 M255 achieves 721.9 GFLOPS FP32, 7.520 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 22.56 GTexel/s texture rate. The Radeon R5 M255 lists FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro M4000 does not record. The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, a single-slot form factor, one 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W; none of those fields are populated for the Radeon R5 M255.

The Quadro M4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Radeon R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has no display output data. The Quadro M4000 is 241 mm long (9.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), while the Radeon R5 M255 has no recorded dimensions. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon R5 M255 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro M4000 was released in 2015, while the Radeon R5 M255 was released in 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark results, and the Quadro M4000 wins both by enormous margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the Radeon R5 M255's 4,650, a delta of 311.1%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M4000 scores 24,640 against the Radeon R5 M255's 4,925, a delta of 400.3%.

The Vulkan gap is even larger than the OpenCL gap, which suggests the Quadro M4000's architectural advantages become more pronounced under the Vulkan API. The 400.3% delta means the Quadro M4000 delivers more than five times the Vulkan performance of the Radeon R5 M255. For OpenCL, the 311.1% delta means the Quadro M4000 delivers roughly four times the compute performance.

These deltas are far larger than the differences between each GPU and its own nearest rivals. The Quadro M4000's closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, sits only 0.6% higher in average score, and the Radeon R5 M255's closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, sits only 0.1% higher. The gap between these two GPUs is not a marginal one; it is a full performance class separation.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins both recorded benchmark tests, which means it is the superior choice for compute workloads and graphics API performance. Its 19,118 Geekbench OpenCL score indicates strong general-purpose compute capability, useful for tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing. Its 24,640 Geekbench Vulkan score points to solid modern graphics API performance, which matters for gaming and real-time visualization. The Quadro M4000's 8 GB GDDR5 memory and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth also give it a clear advantage in memory-heavy scenarios, though those specifications do not appear in the benchmark scores directly.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 does not win either head-to-head test, so the data does not support a use case where it outperforms the Quadro M4000. Its 4,650 OpenCL score and 4,925 Vulkan score are roughly a quarter of the Quadro M4000's results. The Radeon R5 M255's lower transistor count, smaller die, and reduced memory resources all point to a part intended for lightweight, power-efficient mobile tasks rather than professional workloads. Its GCN 3.0 architecture and 2 GB DDR3 memory limit its applicability in modern, memory-intensive applications.

The Quadro M4000's average benchmark score of 5467 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M255's 4788 average places it in the 28th percentile. Both are mid-to-low performers relative to the entire GPU landscape, but the Quadro M4000 sits in a higher tier. For any user choosing between these two, the Quadro M4000 is the only rational pick based on the recorded data. The Radeon R5 M255's only conceivable advantage would be in scenarios where its unspecified power draw or smaller physical footprint matters, but the database does not include TDP or dimension data for that part, so no such comparison can be made from the facts available.