AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 are two mobile graphics solutions from different eras, aimed at different workloads. The Quadro 4000M is an older professional workstation part built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, while the Radeon R5 M320 is a later entry-level consumer chip based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture. Benchmark data in the database shows a narrow overall margin between them, but their underlying designs and feature sets point to very different use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 against the AMD Radeon R5 M320’s 5051. That gives the Quadro a lead of 3.2%. This is a modest margin, not a decisive victory, but it is consistent across the single benchmark where both are measured under identical conditions. The Quadro’s advantage in raw compute throughput is visible here, but the Radeon is close enough that real-world differences would depend heavily on the specific application and driver optimization.

To put that score in context, the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M with an average score of 5236 (0.5% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 (1% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154 (1.1% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284 (1.4% higher). In other words, the Quadro 4000M is bracketed by a group of mid-range mobile parts, and its OpenCL score is competitive with all of them. The Radeon R5 M320’s average benchmark score is 4657, which places it at the 27th percentile. Its nearest rivals are a mixed group: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at the same average score of 4657 (0% difference), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (0.6% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (0.6% lower), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (0.8% lower). The Radeon’s average is pulled down by its additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262, which is lower than its OpenCL result. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so comparisons on that API are not possible from the available data.

The key takeaway from the head-to-head numbers is that the Quadro 4000M wins the only direct comparison, but the margin is small. A 3.2% difference in OpenCL performance is within the range of what driver updates or thermal conditions could alter in practice. However, the database records only one test, so the overall picture is incomplete. The Quadro’s single benchmark score is 5211, while the Radeon’s OpenCL score is 5051. If we look at the Radeon’s average across both its recorded benchmarks, it drops to 4657, which is 10.6% lower than the Quadro’s score. That gap is more meaningful, but it reflects the Radeon’s weaker Vulkan showing rather than a pure OpenCL comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, giving the Quadro a 3.2% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M320 support Vulkan?

A: Yes. The Radeon R5 M320 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262 and lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support in its API specifications. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan score or Vulkan version listed in the database.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has an average benchmark score of 5211, based on its single Geekbench OpenCL result. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has an average of 4657, based on its OpenCL and Vulkan results.

Q: How do these GPUs rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile, while the Radeon R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile. Both are below the midpoint, indicating they are entry-level or older mid-range parts by current standards.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth with a 256-bit GDDR5 interface. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 16.00 GB/s with a 64-bit DDR3 interface. The Quadro has five times the bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M was released on February 21, 2011, and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 was released on May 4, 2015.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score is higher, its FP32 throughput is 638.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon, and its texture fill rate is 26.60 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are nearly identical, with the Quadro at 6.650 GPixel/s and the Radeon at 6.840 GPixel/s, so the Radeon actually has a slight edge there. But in memory bandwidth, the Quadro is far ahead: 80.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s. That bandwidth advantage is crucial for memory-intensive workloads like large textures, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-parallel compute tasks. The Quadro also has a wider memory bus at 256 bit versus 64 bit, and more shading units at 336 versus 320, TMUs at 56 versus 20, ROPs at 32 versus 8, and transistors at 1,950 million versus 690 million.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins in several practical areas. It has 4 GB of memory capacity versus 2 GB for the Quadro, though the Radeon’s DDR3 memory is slower and narrower. The Radeon also has a 28 nm process node versus the Quadro’s 40 nm process, which makes it denser: 12.3M transistors per square millimeter versus 5.9M. The Radeon supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), and the Radeon is noted as an IGP (integrated-style mobile part) versus the Quadro, which is an MXM module. The Radeon has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, plus memory at 1000 MHz effective 2 Gbps effective, and it supports DirectX 12 (11_1) with FP16 compute, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon also has Vulkan 1.2.170 support. The Quadro has a TDP of 100 W, while the Radeon has no TDP listed.

The Radeon R5 M320 is clearly the more modern design, with a smaller die (56 mm² versus 332 mm² for the Quadro) and lower power draw, making it suited to thinner laptops. The Quadro, by contrast, is a bulkier MXM module with no power connectors listed, which suggests it was designed for larger chassis with dedicated cooling.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses a GF104 chip on a 40 nm process from TSMC, with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses a Jet chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The transistor density is 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro versus 12.3M per mm² for the Radeon, reflecting the newer node and denser packing.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Quadro has no base clock listed, but its memory runs at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective. The Radeon has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, with memory at 1000 MHz or 2 Gbps effective. The memory configuration is starkly different: the Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Radeon has 4 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro also has more shading units (336 versus 320 TMUs 56 versus 20 ROPs 32 versus 8) and higher texture rate at 26. Texture Rate is 26.60 GTexel/s, pixel rate is 6.650 GPixel/s, FP32 FP32 FP32 FP32 compute is 638.4 GFLOPS. The Radeon’s FP32 is 547.2 GFLOPS, texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s, pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s. The Quadro TDP is 100 W; the Radeon TDP is not listed.

The Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and has a slot width of MXM module. The Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and slot width IGP. Both have display outputs listed as Portable Device Dependent. Both support DirectX 12, with the Quadro at version 12 (11_0) and the Radeon at 12 (11_1). Both have OpenGL 4.6. Only the Radeon has Vulkan support, version 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is based on Fermi architecture, specifically the Quadro Fermi-M generation (x000M). Fermi was designed for compute workloads and professional graphics. The Radeon R5 M320 is based on GCN 1.0 architecture and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. GCN was AMD’s unified shader architecture for compute and gaming, with an emphasis on asynchronous compute and flexible scheduling.

The node difference is major: 40 nm for the Quadro versus 28 nm for the Radeon. That impacts power efficiency and transistor density, but the Quadro still has more transistors overall, 1,950 million versus 690 million, and a much larger die at 332 mm² versus 56 mm². The Quadro’s memory system is built around GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon uses DDR3 with a 64-bit bus. This affects bandwidth heavily, as noted. The Radeon has Vulkan support, which the Quadro lacks, meaning the Radeon can run Vulkan-based games and applications. The Quadro has no Vulkan support listed.

The Quadro has a TDP of 100 W, suggesting it needs active cooling and a dedicated power delivery system. The Radeon has no TDP listed, but as an IGP-style part, it is designed for lower power operation. The Quadro’s production status is end-of-life, and it was released on February 21, 2011. The Radeon was released on May 4, 2015, and is also end-of-life. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The Radeon’s predecessor is the Solar System, and its successor is the Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the stronger general-purpose performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 3.2% margin, has higher FP32 throughput, more texture units, more ROPs, and vastly superior memory bandwidth. It also has a higher percentile ranking at 30 versus 27. For tasks that rely on compute throughput or memory bandwidth, such as rendering, simulation, or large texture workloads, the Quadro is the better choice.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the better choice for users who need modern API support or more memory capacity. It has Vulkan support, which the Quadro lacks, and 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB. That extra memory could be useful for applications that run out of VRAM on the Quadro, even if the Radeon’s DDR3 memory is much slower. The Radeon is also a newer design with a smaller die and a more advanced 28 nm process, which likely makes it more power-efficient, though no TDP is listed to confirm that.

For a professional user with legacy software that leverages OpenCL or requires certified workstation drivers, the Quadro 4000M is the obvious pick. For someone running Vulkan-based games or needing more VRAM in a compact, low-power laptop, the Radeon R5 M320 is more appropriate. Both are end-of-life products, so neither is a forward-looking purchase, but within the data available, the Quadro has the edge in raw performance while the Radeon offers broader API coverage and more memory. The decision comes down to whether the workload favors compute and bandwidth or modern API support and capacity.