AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is in Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979. This gives the AMD part a narrow 1.4% advantage, a margin that is effectively within run-to-run noise for a single compute workload. The data shows a single win for the AMD Radeon R5 M320 in this head-to-head, with zero wins for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro 4000's average benchmark score of 4979 places it at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R5 M320's average score of 4657 places it at the 27th percentile. This is a curious inversion: the Radeon wins the single OpenCL test, yet its average score across benchmarks is lower. The explanation lies in the fact that the Radeon R5 M320 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262, which pulls its average down; the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded.

The nearest rivals for the Quadro 4000 paint a picture of tight clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB scores 4970, a mere 0.2% behind the Quadro 4000. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998, which is 0.4% ahead. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5018, 0.8% ahead, and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4931, 1% behind. These deltas are all under two percentage points, indicating that the Quadro 4000 sits in a dense performance band where small architectural differences decide rankings.

The Radeon R5 M320's nearest rivals show a similar pattern but with a different anchor. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB matches its average score exactly at 4657, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4684, which is 0.6% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, 0.6% lower, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 4621, 0.8% lower. The takeaway is that both cards are mid-pack performers in their respective peer groups, with the Quadro 4000 slightly higher in percentile ranking despite losing the direct OpenCL comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and AMD Radeon R5 M320?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins the single Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5051 versus the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 4979, a 1.4% delta in favor of the AMD card.

Q: How do the two cards rank relative to all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, the Quadro 4000 has a higher overall percentile ranking.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and why do they differ from the head-to-head result?

A: The Quadro 4000 has an average benchmark score of 4979, identical to its single OpenCL score. The Radeon R5 M320 has an average score of 4657, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 5051 because it also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262 that drags the average down.

Q: Which card has better raw compute throughput in terms of FP32?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a higher FP32 rating of 547.2 GFLOPS, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS. This is consistent with the AMD card's win in the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card based on average benchmark scores?

A: For the NVIDIA Quadro 4000, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (0.4% ahead). For the AMD Radeon R5 M320, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657 (0% delta).

Q: Which card supports Vulkan, and what is its score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 supports Vulkan and scores 4262 in Geekbench Vulkan. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan support or benchmark score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture, produced on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0, produced on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 40 nm versus 28 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The Quadro 4000 packs 3,100 million transistors into a die size of 529 mm², yielding a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon R5 M320 contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD part is more than twice as dense, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

The shader architecture differs as well. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This means the AMD card has more compute-oriented shaders but far fewer pixel output units. The pixel rate reflects this: the Quadro 4000 outputs 7.600 GPixel/s, while the Radeon R5 M320 outputs 6.840 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells the opposite story: the Quadro 4000 achieves 15.20 GTexel/s, while the Radeon R5 M320 achieves 17.10 GTexel/s. So the AMD card is faster at texturing but slower at pixel filling.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s. The Radeon R5 M320 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has over five times the memory bandwidth, a massive difference that affects any bandwidth-bound workload. The memory clock for the Quadro 4000 is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the Radeon R5 M320 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Radeon's higher raw clock cannot compensate for its narrow bus.

API support also differs. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The Radeon R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card has a more modern API feature set, particularly the Vulkan support. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon R5 M320 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 40 nm for the Quadro 4000 versus 28 nm for the Radeon R5 M320. Transistor count is 3,100 million versus 690 million, and die size is 529 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

Clock speeds differ in structure: the Quadro 4000 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Radeon R5 M320 has a base clock of 780 MHz, a boost clock of 855 MHz, and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration diverges sharply: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The shading units are 256 versus 320, TMUs are 32 versus 20, and ROPs are 32 versus 8.

Pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 486.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS.

The TDP for the Quadro 4000 is 142 W, with a single-slot form factor and a 1x 6-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU. The Radeon R5 M320 has no TDP listed, is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), and has no power connectors or suggested PSU. The Quadro 4000 is a 241 mm long, 111 mm high, 20 mm wide card; the Radeon R5 M320 has no dimensions listed.

Display outputs differ: the Quadro 4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the Radeon R5 M320 is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for mobile integration. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon.

The release dates are about four and a half years apart: the Quadro 4000 launched on 2010-11-01, and the Radeon R5 M320 launched on 2015-05-04. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD; the Radeon has no launch MSRP listed. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The Radeon's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In the single direct benchmark, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins by 1.4% in Geekbench OpenCL. However, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 holds a higher overall percentile ranking (29th versus 27th) and a higher average benchmark score (4979 versus 4657). The Quadro 4000 also has a massive bandwidth advantage: 89.86 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s, a 5.6x difference. This suggests the Quadro is better suited for workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, such as high-resolution rendering or large dataset processing.

The Radeon R5 M320 counters with higher FP32 compute (547.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS), more shading units (320 versus 256), higher texture rate (17.10 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s), and Vulkan support. It also has double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), though on a much narrower bus. The Radeon's newer 28 nm process and denser transistor layout (12.3M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) indicate a more modern design.

For a user prioritizing compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, the Radeon R5 M320 edges ahead. For a user prioritizing memory bandwidth, pixel fill rate, or the stability of a workstation-class card with a 142 W TDP and dedicated display outputs, the Quadro 4000 is the stronger choice. The Quadro also has a longer track record, released in 2010 versus 2015, and a defined launch MSRP of 1,199 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in scenarios that demand memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. Its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth versus the Radeon's 16.00 GB/s is the single largest specification gap between the two cards. The Quadro's pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s exceeds the Radeon's 6.840 GPixel/s, making it better for fill-rate-bound operations. Its 32 ROPs versus 8 ROPs reinforces this advantage. The Quadro also wins on form factor: it is a single-slot card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, suitable for a desktop workstation, while the Radeon is an IGP with no discrete display outputs. The Quadro's 142 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU indicate a standalone card, whereas the Radeon's lack of power connectors and IGP classification point to mobile integration.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in compute-oriented tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5051 beats the Quadro's 4979. Its FP32 output of 547.2 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro's 486.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s beats the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s. The Radeon also has 320 shading units versus 256, and it supports Vulkan with a score of 4262, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro's specification. The Radeon's 4 GB memory capacity doubles the Quadro's 2 GB, which helps in workloads that need large working sets even if the bandwidth is lower. The Radeon's newer process node (28 nm versus 40 nm) and higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) suggest better energy efficiency per transistor, though no TDP is listed for the Radeon to confirm this. The Radeon also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, a newer bus standard than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16, and has a more recent release date of 2015 versus 2010.