AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5211 against the AMD Radeon R5 M335's 4745. That is a 9.8% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: How do these two GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile, while the Radeon R5 M335 is at the 28th percentile. Both are low-to-mid-range performers, but the Quadro holds a slightly higher overall position.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, and does that translate into higher raw compute?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units versus 320 for the Radeon. However, the Radeon's FP32 throughput is marginally higher at 659.2 GFLOPS compared to 638.4 GFLOPS, so unit count alone does not decide peak compute.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two mobile GPUs?

A: Both have 2 GB of memory, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s, a massive difference in memory throughput.

Q: Do they support the same modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon R5 M335 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller die and newer manufacturing process?

A: The Radeon R5 M335 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 56 mm². The Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process with a die size of 332 mm², making the Radeon considerably smaller and denser.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 9.8%. That single result drives its entire lead in the head-to-head comparison. The Quadro also has a decisive advantage in memory bandwidth, 80.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, which matters for any workload that streams large datasets, such as texture-heavy 3D scenes or compute kernels that read and write big buffers. Its 256-bit bus is four times wider than the Radeon's 64-bit bus, and GDDR5 is substantially faster than DDR3 in this configuration.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335, by contrast, has no benchmark win in the shared tests. Its strengths are architectural rather than measured in this comparison. It offers Vulkan support, which the Quadro lacks entirely, so any application or game that uses Vulkan will run only on the Radeon. It also has a higher pixel rate, 8.240 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, suggesting faster fill-rate-oriented work despite its lower texture rate. Additionally, the Radeon's FP32 peak of 659.2 GFLOPS edges out the Quadro's 638.4 GFLOPS, and it does so on a much smaller, more power-efficient process node.

For a user choosing between the two, the Quadro 4000M is the better choice for OpenCL compute and memory-heavy tasks. The Radeon R5 M335 is the only option if Vulkan compatibility is required, and it offers slightly better pixel throughput and peak FP32, though these advantages do not overcome its narrow memory bus in the recorded benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro 4000M is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, specifically the GF104 chip. It uses a 40 nm process at TSMC with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per mm². The Radeon R5 M335 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, implemented in the Exo chip, on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into just 56 mm², for a density of 12.3 million per mm². The Radeon is therefore both much smaller and much denser, a direct result of the newer manufacturing node.

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in their memory architecture. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. That is a 5.5x difference in memory bandwidth, and it is the single most consequential architectural gap between these two parts. The Radeon's narrow bus and slower memory type limit its ability to feed its shader array, which explains why its higher FP32 peak does not translate into a benchmark win.

The compute resources are numerically similar. The Quadro has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro leads in texture rate at 26.60 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, and in ROP count, while the Radeon leads in pixel rate, 8.240 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, due to its higher clock behavior. Neither part has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The Radeon supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro's API list shows no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, with the Quadro's DirectX 12 listed as 12 (11_0) and the Radeon's as 12 (11_1). The Radeon also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, whereas the Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) connector, reflecting its mobile workstation heritage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The Quadro 4000M is built on a 40 nm process, while the Radeon R5 M335 uses 28 nm. Transistor count is 1,950 million versus 690 million, and die size is 332 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is 5.9 million per mm² for the Quadro and 12.3 million per mm² for the Radeon.

Memory bandwidth is 80.00 GB/s for the Quadro versus 14.40 GB/s for the Radeon. The Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus; the Radeon uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. Both have 2 GB of memory. The Quadro has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 6.650 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 8.240 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 26.60 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 638.4 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

The Quadro has a TDP of 100 W, while the Radeon has no listed TDP. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface; the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both have no power connectors. The Quadro was released earlier, on 2011-02-21, while the Radeon came later, on 2015-10-20. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The Radeon's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4745. That gives the Quadro a 9.8% win. The Radeon also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4758, but the Quadro has no Vulkan score recorded, so no direct comparison is possible there.

Looking at the Quadro's nearest rivals places this OpenCL result in context. The Quadro scores 5211, which is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236, and 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284. It is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154. The Quadro's position is tightly clustered: it sits within about 1.5% of all four nearest rivals, showing that its performance is typical for its class.

The Radeon R5 M335's OpenCL score of 4745 places it in a similar tight cluster. It is 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727, and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684. It trails the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4788 by 0.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4791 by 0.8%. The presence of such a high-end card as the RTX 3080 12 GB in this list is notable, but the delta is small, indicating the Radeon's score falls in a common performance band.

The head-to-head delta of 9.8% is the largest gap between the two GPUs in any shared metric. That margin is meaningful but not enormous, and it aligns with the hardware differences. The Quadro's 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the Radeon's 14.40 GB/s should produce a larger gap in memory-bound workloads, yet the OpenCL test shows only a 9.8% difference, suggesting the Radeon's smaller, denser architecture and slightly higher FP32 peak help close the distance. The Radeon's higher pixel rate, 8.240 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, also indicates that fill-rate tasks could favor the Radeon even though it loses the compute test.

In summary, the Quadro 4000M wins the single measurable head-to-head benchmark by a clear margin, while the Radeon R5 M335 offers newer API support and some raw throughput advantages that do not translate into a victory in the recorded data.