AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 represent two very different approaches to mobile and workstation graphics, separated by five years of technology evolution. The data shows a clear, if narrow, overall winner in raw compute, but the story is more complex when examining architectural philosophy and feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4745 points. This gives the Quadro 4000 a 4.9% advantage, a modest but definitive win. The Quadro 4000 also wins the head-to-head tally by 1 win to 0.

Contextualizing this score against the nearest rivals puts the performance in perspective. The Quadro 4000 sits just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, a staggeringly modern card, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M360. It trails the AMD Radeon R5 M430 by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by 0.4%. The AMD Radeon R5 M335, meanwhile, is 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P400 and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, but falls 0.7% short of the AMD Radeon R5 M255 and 0.8% short of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB.

The performance gap between the two cards is nearly negligible in real-world terms. A 4.9% delta in OpenCL means that in most compute workloads, the user would be hard-pressed to notice a difference without running a stopwatch. The Quadro 4000’s win is consistent with its higher memory bandwidth, which we will examine later, but the R5 M335’s higher raw shader count and clock speeds keep it competitive.

Interestingly, the R5 M335 has a second benchmark score for Geekbench Vulkan: 4758 points. This is remarkably close to its OpenCL score of 4745, suggesting that the card’s compute performance is consistent across different APIs. The Quadro 4000 lacks a Vulkan benchmark score entirely, which hints at a potential software limitation or simply a lack of testing for that older architecture.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the stronger performer in the single head-to-head test. It wins the OpenCL benchmark with a 4.9% margin, and its 29th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it just above the R5 M335’s 28th percentile. The Quadro 4000’s average benchmark score of 4979 also exceeds the R5 M335’s average of 4752, a 4.8% difference.

The verdict for most users is straightforward: the Quadro 4000 is the faster card. It is a workstation-oriented product from 2010 with a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, and it still outperforms a mobile chip from 2015 in compute tasks. The R5 M335, however, is not without merit. It offers Vulkan support, which the Quadro 4000 lacks entirely, and its performance is close enough that in less compute-intensive tasks, the difference may be imperceptible.

Data suggests that users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute power should choose the Quadro 4000. Those who need modern API support, specifically Vulkan, or who are constrained by a portable device form factor, should consider the R5 M335. The R5 M335’s lack of a TDP rating and its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs indicate it is designed for laptops where power consumption is a critical factor, even if the data does not specify the exact wattage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, complex chip with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². Fermi was designed for high-end compute and professional visualization, which explains its emphasis on memory bandwidth and double-precision performance.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Exo chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip is dramatically smaller, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The transistor density here is 12.3M per mm², more than double that of the Quadro 4000. GCN 1.0 was designed to be scalable and efficient, and the 28 nm node allowed AMD to pack more transistors per area, even if the total count is lower.

The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This is a fundamental difference: the Quadro 4000 allocates more hardware to rasterization and pixel output, while the R5 M335 has more compute-oriented shaders. The R5 M335’s pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s, slightly higher than the Quadro 4000’s 7.600 GPixel/s, but the Quadro 4000’s texture rate of 15.20 GTexel/s is lower than the R5 M335’s 20.60 GTexel/s. The R5 M335 also has a higher FP32 performance at 659.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000.

The memory architectures could not be more different. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. This is a 6.2x difference in memory bandwidth, which is the primary reason the Quadro 4000 wins the OpenCL test despite having fewer shaders and lower raw compute throughput. The R5 M335’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro 4000’s memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Quadro 4000’s wider bus compensates for its lower clock speed.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several key differences beyond the core architecture. The process node differs: 40 nm for NVIDIA versus 28 nm for AMD. The transistor count and die size are drastically different, as detailed above. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the Quadro 4000.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. It is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has no listed TDP, no slot width, and no dimensions, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. It also requires no power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe slot. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display outputs are another major divergence. The Quadro 4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, while the R5 M335’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are determined by the laptop manufacturer. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The release dates show the generational gap: the Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01, and the R5 M335 on 2015-10-20. The Quadro 4000’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The R5 M335’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has an average benchmark score of 4979, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 has an average of 4752, a difference of 4.8%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M335 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R5 M335 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 does not list any Vulkan support in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a memory bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 has a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has 320 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is manufactured on a 40 nm process, and the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is manufactured on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 7.600 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 4.9% margin. Its massive memory bandwidth advantage (89.86 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) makes it the clear choice for memory-bound compute workloads. It also has a higher percentile ranking (29th versus 28th) and a higher average benchmark score. Its 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory are superior to the R5 M335’s 64-bit DDR3 setup. For professional workstation tasks that rely on large datasets and high-bandwidth memory access, the Quadro 4000 is the winner.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in areas not covered by the head-to-head benchmark. It has higher FP32 compute (659.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS), a higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s), and a higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s). It also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro 4000 does not, making it a better choice for applications that leverage that API. Its smaller size, lack of power connectors, and "Portable Device Dependent" outputs make it suitable for laptops where space and power are at a premium. The R5 M335’s 28 nm process and higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) indicate a more modern, efficient design. In raw shader throughput and modern API compatibility, the R5 M335 is the superior part, even if its memory subsystem holds it back in the OpenCL test.