AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 points against the AMD Radeon R5 M330's 4302 points. That gives the Quadro 4000 a 15.7% lead, a substantial margin for compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

Context matters here. The Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R5 M330 sits at the 25th percentile. Both are firmly in the lower half of the performance spectrum, but the Quadro 4000's lead is real and measurable. The 15.7% delta in OpenCL is not a trivial gap; it means the Quadro 4000 completes OpenCL workloads roughly 15% faster than the R5 M330 across the board.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces where they stand. The Quadro 4000's average benchmark score of 4979 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which scores 4970, a delta of just 0.2%. It also sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, delta -0.8%). The AMD Radeon R7 M360 trails by 1% at 4931. So the Quadro 4000 is right in a cluster of cards around the 4900-5000 mark, and its OpenCL performance is competitive with much newer hardware.

The Radeon R5 M330's average benchmark score of 4170 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, delta -0.5%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, delta -1.7%). The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB trails by 1.9% at 4093. The R5 M330 is thus clustered in the 4100-4250 range, noticeably below the Quadro 4000's neighborhood.

The R5 M330 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4037, a result the Quadro 4000 cannot match because it has no Vulkan support in the database. That is a meaningful distinction: for Vulkan-based workloads, the R5 M330 has a recorded result, while the Quadro 4000 has none. However, in the one test where both cards appear, the NVIDIA part wins decisively.

The wins tally is one for the Quadro 4000 and zero for the R5 M330 in head-to-head comparisons. That is a clean sweep, but it is also a single data point. The bigger picture from the percentile ranks and nearest rival clusters is that both cards are entry-level or legacy parts, and the Quadro 4000 is the stronger of the two for OpenCL compute.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 15.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M330's 4302. The Quadro 4000 wins the only head-to-head test in the database.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M330 support Vulkan?

A: Yes. The R5 M330 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4037 and lists Vulkan 1.2.170 in its API support. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan entry in the database, so it cannot be compared on that API.

Q: How do these cards compare to modern GPUs?

A: The Quadro 4000's average score of 4979 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970). The R5 M330's average of 4170 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093). Both cards are far below the top performers in the database, given their 29th and 25th percentile ranks.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR5 bus, while the R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 bus. That is a 6.2x difference in favor of the Quadro 4000, which explains much of its compute advantage.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The R5 M330 has a higher pixel rate at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000. The R5 M330 also has a higher texture rate at 20.60 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. Despite having fewer ROPs (8 versus 32) and fewer TMUs (20 versus 32), the R5 M330's higher clocks push these rates up.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector plus a 300 W suggested PSU. The R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W, uses no power connectors, and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no suggested PSU listed. The R5 M330 is designed for portable devices and sips power by comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins on raw compute throughput. Its 15.7% OpenCL advantage over the R5 M330 makes it the clear choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL acceleration, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or GPGPU tasks. The Quadro 4000 also has vastly superior memory bandwidth at 89.86 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, which matters for large datasets that need to stream through the GPU quickly. Its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory are workstation-class features, even if the card itself is old.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins on efficiency and portability. With an 18 W TDP and no power connectors, it is an integrated part designed for laptops and small form factor devices. The Quadro 4000, by contrast, is a 142 W single-slot card that needs a 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU. The R5 M330 also has Vulkan support with a recorded score of 4037, which the Quadro 4000 lacks entirely. For Vulkan-based games or applications, the R5 M330 has a functional path while the Quadro 4000 does not.

The R5 M330 also wins on raw pixel and texture throughput. Its 8.240 GPixel/s pixel rate and 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate both exceed the Quadro 4000's 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s. This suggests the R5 M330 is relatively better at fill-rate-bound tasks, even though its overall compute score is lower. The R5 M330 also uses a newer PCIe 3.0 x8 interface versus the Quadro 4000's PCIe 2.0 x16, which is a minor advantage for data transfer in modern systems.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The Quadro 4000 is built on a 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The R5 M330 uses a 28 nm process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the R5 M330 packs 12.3M transistors per mm², while the Quadro 4000 manages only 5.9M per mm². The R5 M330 is the more modern, denser design.

Clocks differ significantly. The Quadro 4000 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The R5 M330 has a base clock of 955 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R5 M330's core clock is substantially higher, but its memory clock is lower in effective throughput.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M330 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Both have the same capacity, but the Quadro 4000 has 4x the bus width and 6.2x the bandwidth.

Compute units differ in count and type. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M330 has more shading units but fewer TMUs and ROPs. The Quadro 4000's FP32 throughput is 486.4 GFLOPS, while the R5 M330's is 659.2 GFLOPS, a 35% advantage for AMD.

Power and physical requirements are worlds apart. The Quadro 4000 has a 142 W TDP, is single-slot, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. It measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The R5 M330 has an 18 W TDP, is an IGP, uses no power connectors, and has no PSU recommendation or dimensions listed. The Quadro 4000 is a bulky add-in card; the R5 M330 is integrated into a portable device.

Display outputs also differ. The Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The R5 M330's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop or device it is built into.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip. Fermi was NVIDIA's compute-focused design from the 2010 era, and the Quadro 4000 is part of the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. It was released in November 2010 and succeeded the Quadro FX Tesla line, with the Quadro Kepler as its successor. Its API support includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on GCN 1.0, using the Exo chip. GCN (Graphics Core Next) was AMD's architecture that prioritized compute throughput and efficiency. The R5 M330 is part of the Gem System (R5 M300) generation, released in May 2015, succeeding the Solar System line and succeeded by Polaris Mobile. Its API support includes DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The architectural gap is significant. Fermi was designed when 40 nm was leading-edge, and the Quadro 4000's massive 529 mm² die with 3,100 million transistors reflects that era's approach: big die, high power, high performance per transistor. GCN 1.0 on 28 nm is a more modern, efficient design, and the R5 M330's 56 mm² die with 690 million transistors shows how much smaller and denser GPUs became in five years.

The R5 M330's higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS) comes from its newer architecture and higher clocks. GCN 1.0 was designed to scale well with shader count, and the R5 M330's 320 shading units outnumber the Quadro 4000's 256. However, the Quadro 4000's memory system, with 4x the bus width and 6.2x the bandwidth, is a legacy of Fermi's workstation focus. Fermi was built for professional compute with large memory pipelines, and that shows in the bandwidth numbers.

The process node difference (40 nm versus 28 nm) explains the power and density gap. The R5 M330 fits 12.3M transistors per mm² versus 5.9M for the Quadro 4000, and it does so at 18 W versus 142 W. That is an 8x power efficiency improvement in the newer part, though the Quadro 4000 still wins on compute performance in the recorded benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the stronger card for OpenCL compute, with a 15.7% lead over the AMD Radeon R5 M330. Its memory bandwidth advantage (89.86 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and 256-bit bus make it the better choice for any workload that moves large amounts of data through the GPU. The Quadro 4000 also has a higher average benchmark score (4979 versus 4170) and sits at the 29th percentile versus the R5 M330's 25th. For professional or compute-focused tasks, the Quadro 4000 is the right pick, provided the system can accommodate its 142 W TDP, 241 mm length, and 6-pin power connector.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the better choice for portable, low-power systems. Its 18 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors mean it can be dropped into a laptop or compact device without any power or space considerations. It also has Vulkan support with a recorded score of 4037, which the Quadro 4000 cannot offer. If a workload uses Vulkan, the R5 M330 is the only option of the two.

For fill-rate-bound tasks, the R5 M330 has higher pixel and texture rates (8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s). Its higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS) and higher core clocks (1030 MHz boost versus no listed clock for the Quadro) suggest it handles shader-heavy work relatively better, even if the overall OpenCL score is lower.

The verdict depends on the use case. A desktop workstation with a power budget and a need for OpenCL compute should take the Quadro 4000. A portable device that needs Vulkan, low power, and modest compute should take the R5 M330. The Quadro 4000 wins the head-to-head benchmark, but the R5 M330 wins on efficiency, API coverage, and modern integration. Neither card is a top performer, but each has a role. The Quadro 4000 is the compute specialist; the R5 M330 is the efficiency-focused mobile part.