AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark available in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a narrow but clear lead for the AMD Radeon R5 M430. The AMD part scores 5152 points against the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 4979, a delta of 3.5%. That is a meaningful margin in a synthetic compute test, but it is far from a rout—the two GPUs land within a whisker of each other in absolute terms.

Context matters here. The R5 M430’s average benchmark score sits at 5018, while the Quadro 4000 averages 4979. The delta between their averages is just 0.8% in favor of the AMD part. In the nearest-rival table for the R5 M430, the Quadro 4000 appears with a deltaPct of 0.8—meaning the AMD card is that much faster on average. Flip the perspective, and the Quadro 4000’s own nearest-rival list shows the R5 M430 at -0.8%, confirming the same tiny gap from the NVIDIA side.

The percentile ranking reinforces how close these two are in the broader GPU landscape. The R5 M430 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 is at the 29th. That one-percentile difference is consistent with the sub-1% average score gap. Neither card is breaking any records; both are firmly in the lower-middle tier of the performance spectrum.

What is striking is that the Quadro 4000, despite its age and workstation pedigree, manages to stay within striking distance of a much newer mobile part. The AMD card wins the only head-to-head test, but the margin is slim enough that individual driver versions or thermal conditions could plausibly flip the result in a real-world scenario. The data shows a win for AMD, but it is a close one.

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the AMD Radeon R5 M430 the sole victory in the head-to-head comparison, with one win across the available tests. That win comes in OpenCL compute, where the R5 M430’s 5152 score outpaces the Quadro 4000’s 4979 by 3.5%. For tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU compute—think OpenCL-accelerated workloads in content creation or scientific applications—the AMD part holds a measurable edge.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, meanwhile, has no benchmark wins in this dataset. That does not mean it is without merit; rather, the available evidence simply shows it trailing in the one test both cards share. The Quadro 4000’s architecture, memory configuration, and feature set may still make it preferable for specific professional workloads, but the benchmark numbers do not bear that out in raw compute performance.

Looking at the nearest-rival data, the R5 M430 also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) by 0.4% and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063) by -0.9%—the latter meaning the R7 M340 is actually slightly faster. The Quadro 4000, for its part, trails the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by -0.4% and beats the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931) by 1%. These comparisons suggest that both cards occupy a similar performance band, with the R5 M430 marginally ahead of the Quadro 4000 but not decisively so against other budget-tier GPUs.

For use-case planning, the data implies the R5 M430 is the better choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads. The Quadro 4000 offers no demonstrated compute advantage here, though its GDDR5 memory and wider bus might benefit other tasks not covered by the available benchmarks. Without additional test data, the Quadro 4000’s specific strengths remain unquantified.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies, which explains their similar performance despite wildly different underlying hardware. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 uses the Jet chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, by contrast, uses the GF100 chip on Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm node. That older process results in 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die—nearly ten times the area—with a density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter.

The compute configurations differ significantly. The R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000 has fewer shading units (256) but more TMUs (32) and ROPs (32). These numbers explain the rasterization and texturing characteristics: the Quadro 4000’s pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s for the R5 M430, while the AMD card’s texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s against 15.20 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. FP32 compute favors AMD at 547.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS, which aligns with the OpenCL benchmark result.

Memory is another major divergence. The R5 M430 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 89.86 GB/s—more than five times the bandwidth. That is a massive difference that the benchmark data does not fully capture, since OpenCL compute may not be bandwidth-bound in this case. The Quadro 4000’s memory clock is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the R5 M430’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The effective speed is higher on the NVIDIA card, but the bus width is the real differentiator.

API support shows both cards supporting DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The R5 M430 adds Vulkan 1.2.170; the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed. The R5 M430 also has a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0). Power and physical specs differ sharply: the Quadro 4000 is a 142 W single-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU, while the R5 M430 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no listed TDP or power connectors. The Quadro 4000 measures 241 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm; the R5 M430 has no dimensions, being portable-device dependent.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5152 against the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 4979, a 3.5% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R5 M430 averages 5018 across its two benchmark entries, while the Quadro 4000 averages 4979 from a single test. The difference is 0.8% in favor of the AMD card.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000 support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed. The R5 M430 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The R5 M430 has a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter, more than double the Quadro 4000’s 5.9 million, despite the NVIDIA chip having far more total transistors.

Q: What is the power requirement for the Quadro 4000?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a 142 W TDP, requires a 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested PSU. The R5 M430 is an IGP with no listed TDP or power connectors.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M430 | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 89.86 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 256 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.840 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.10 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 547.2 GFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 142 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not listed |

| DirectX Feature Level | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Dimensions (L×H×W) | Not listed | 241 mm × 111 mm × 20 mm |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2010-11-01 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 1,199 USD |

# The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R5 M430 as the better performer in compute workloads, at least as measured by the available OpenCL benchmark. Its 3.5% head-to-head win and 0.8% higher average score are modest but consistent advantages. For anyone running OpenCL-accelerated tasks on a portable device, the R5 M430 is the safer bet based on the numbers. Its smaller die, newer process node, and higher transistor density suggest better efficiency, even though those traits are not directly benchmarked here.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, however, has strengths the benchmarks do not reveal. Its 5.5× higher memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s) and larger ROP count (32 versus 8) could make it superior for memory-intensive or rasterization-heavy workloads. The card’s 142 W TDP and dedicated power connector indicate a desktop workstation design, not a mobile part. Its release date of November 2010 and launch MSRP of 1,199 USD position it as a professional-grade product from a bygone era. The R5 M430, by contrast, is an integrated GPU with no listed TDP, designed for portability.

Choose the R5 M430 if your priority is OpenCL compute performance in a power-efficient, mobile form factor. Choose the Quadro 4000 if you need a discrete, single-slot workstation card with high memory bandwidth, multiple display outputs, and a long physical footprint—provided you can accommodate its 142 W power draw. The benchmark data favors AMD, but the specification sheet tells a more nuanced story. Neither card is a clear winner across all dimensions; the right choice depends on whether your workload is compute-bound or bandwidth-bound.