AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins every shared benchmark by a wide margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 points against 4,745 for the AMD Radeon R5 M335, a delta of 302.9%. This is not a close contest; the Quadro M4000 delivers roughly four times the compute throughput in this API.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The Quadro M4000 posts 24,640 points, while the Radeon R5 M335 manages only 4,758, a delta of 417.9%. That means the NVIDIA part is over five times faster in this particular workload. For any application relying on Vulkan performance, the Radeon R5 M335 is simply out of its depth.

Looking at the broader database picture, the Quadro M4000's average benchmark score is 5,467, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 (0.3% faster), the AMD Radeon 610M at 5,444 (0.4% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 (0.6% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 (0.7% slower). The Quadro M4000 sits squarely in a cluster of mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts, with none of its nearest competitors more than 1% away.

The Radeon R5 M335, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 4,752 and sits in the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4,727 (0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 at 4,788 (0.7% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4,791 (0.8% faster), and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4,684 (1.5% slower). The presence of an RTX 3080-class part in this list is an artifact of the averaging method, but the takeaway stands: the R5 M335 competes in a much lower performance tier.

The Quadro M4000 also has far more benchmark coverage. The database records ten separate scores for the NVIDIA card, spanning DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, and compute workloads. The Radeon R5 M335 only has two recorded scores, both from Geekbench. This disparity in coverage means the AMD part's average is based on a much thinner slice of data, but the head-to-head results are unambiguous where they overlap.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000 wins every category where both cards have data. In compute-focused APIs like OpenCL and Vulkan, the margin is enormous, as detailed above. The NVIDIA card's 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines dwarf the Radeon's 320 shaders, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The numbers align: more hardware resources translate directly into higher scores.

The Radeon R5 M335 has no recorded wins in any shared test. Its only two benchmark entries, Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, are both losses by triple-digit percentage margins. In the database's win tally, the Quadro M4000 holds 2 wins and the Radeon R5 M335 holds 0.

For use cases, the data points to the Quadro M4000 as the choice for any workload that stresses compute or modern graphics APIs. The Radeon R5 M335, with its 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, offers only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a severe constraint for texture-heavy or memory-intensive tasks. The Quadro M4000's 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus provides 192.3 GB/s, over 13 times the bandwidth.

The Radeon R5 M335's role is limited by its specifications. With a 28 nm process node and only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, it is a small, low-power part designed for basic mobile graphics. Its DirectX 12 support is listed as 12 (11_1), which is a feature-level limitation compared to the Quadro M4000's 12 (12_1). For legacy DirectX 9 or 10 workloads, the Quadro M4000's PassMark scores of 113 and 33 respectively, while modest, still represent recorded performance; the Radeon has no comparable entries in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. This is a large, professional-grade chip with substantial compute resources.

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses the Exo chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The die size difference is stark: the Quadro M4000's die is roughly seven times larger. The transistor count difference is even more pronounced, with the NVIDIA part holding over 7.5 times as many transistors.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Quadro M4000 features 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 6 Gbps. The Radeon R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s at 1800 Mbps effective. This is not merely a capacity difference; the memory type and bus width create an order-of-magnitude gap in bandwidth.

The compute pipelines reflect the architectural gulf. The Quadro M4000 offers 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s. The Radeon R5 M335 manages 659.2 GFLOPS, 8.240 GPixel/s, and 20.60 GTexel/s. Every rate metric favors the NVIDIA card by factors of roughly 4 to 6.

API support also differs. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support the same OpenGL version, but the DirectX feature level and Vulkan version favor NVIDIA.

Physical specifications diverge as well. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card with a 120 W TDP, requiring one 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. It measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Radeon R5 M335 has no recorded TDP, no slot width, no power connectors, and no dimensions, consistent with a mobile or embedded part. Its bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, half the width of the Quadro M4000's PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro M4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon R5 M335's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro M4000 was released in June 2015, with the Quadro Kepler series as its predecessor and Quadro Pascal as its successor. The Radeon R5 M335 was released in October 2015, with the Solar System series as its predecessor and Polaris Mobile as its successor.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for users choosing between these two parts: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the vastly superior GPU. It wins every shared benchmark by margins of 302.9% to 417.9%, has over four times the FP32 throughput, over 13 times the memory bandwidth, and eight times the VRAM capacity. The Radeon R5 M335's only advantage is its smaller size and lack of external power requirements, but the database records no performance win for it.

Users who need professional-grade compute, high-bandwidth memory, or modern API features should select the Quadro M4000. Its 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures, while its 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 performance handles compute workloads with room to spare. The DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level and Vulkan 1.4 support ensure compatibility with current and near-future software.

The Radeon R5 M335 is only viable for the most basic graphics tasks where power draw and physical footprint matter more than performance. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth severely limit its usefulness, and its 659.2 GFLOPS compute is a fraction of the NVIDIA part's capability. The data shows no scenario where the Radeon R5 M335 outperforms the Quadro M4000 in any measured benchmark.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 than the AMD Radeon R5 M335 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon R5 M335 scores 4,745, a delta of 302.9%.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Radeon R5 M335 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon R5 M335 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the transistor count of each GPU?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 5,200 million transistors, while the Radeon R5 M335 has 690 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, placing it in the 32nd percentile. The Radeon R5 M335 has an average of 4,752, placing it in the 28th percentile.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each GPU?

A: The Quadro M4000 delivers 2.573 TFLOPS, while the Radeon R5 M335 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | AMD Radeon R5 M335 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM204 | Exo |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 320 |

| TMUs | 104 | 20 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.573 TFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not recorded |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2015-10-20 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Polaris Mobile |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5,467 | 4,752 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 28 |