AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and AMD Radeon R5 M430 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a near-tie in raw compute benchmarks, yet the specification sheets tell a story of two GPUs built for entirely different purposes. This analysis will break down exactly where each part stands according to the available benchmark data and hardware specifications.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M holds a razor-thin edge. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 4000M scores 5211, which is 1.1% higher than the Radeon R5 M430's 5152. This is effectively a statistical dead heat, as both GPUs sit at the 30th percentile among all GPUs. The Quadro 4000M’s average benchmark score of 5211 places it between the GeForce GTX 760M (5236, 0.5% faster) and the Radeon R7 M260X (5161, 1% slower). The R5 M430’s average score of 5018 puts it near the FirePro W4170M (5034, 0.3% faster) and the Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0.9% faster).

The practical verdict is that neither card offers a meaningful performance advantage in compute workloads. However, the choice between them depends on legacy system compatibility. The Quadro 4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, making it a candidate for upgrading older mobile workstations with that slot. The R5 M430 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) on PCIe 3.0 x8, meaning it is soldered to the motherboard and not upgradeable. If you are maintaining a 2011-era workstation with an MXM slot, the Quadro 4000M is the only viable option. If you are dealing with a newer budget laptop with an integrated Radeon, the R5 M430 is simply what you have. For raw performance, the data shows no clear winner—pick based on platform compatibility, not scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundry processes. The Quadro 4000M is built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process. This is a large, power-hungry design with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². In contrast, the Radeon R5 M430 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs just 690 million transistors onto a tiny 56 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 12.3 million per mm².

The compute resources are surprisingly similar in count but differ in organization. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. While the shader counts are close, the Quadro has 2.8 times more TMUs and 4 times more ROPs. This explains why the Quadro achieves a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s versus the R5 M430’s 17.10 GTexel/s, despite the R5 having a slightly higher pixel rate (6.840 GPixel/s vs 6.650 GPixel/s).

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Quadro 4000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M430 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.00 GB/s—a 5x disadvantage. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the Quadro’s memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the R5’s memory is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The R5 does have a defined base clock of 780 MHz and boost of 855 MHz, whereas the Quadro’s core clocks are not listed in the data.

Feature support differs in API coverage. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no listed Vulkan support. The R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R5 also has a dedicated Geekbench Vulkan score of 4884, indicating it can run Vulkan workloads, while the Quadro has no such benchmark data. The Quadro is a discrete MXM module rated at 100 W TDP, while the R5’s TDP is not listed, consistent with its IGP status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro 4000M wins by a narrow 1.1% margin. The Quadro scores 5211 against the R5 M430’s 5152. This result is within the margin of error, as evidenced by the nearest rival data. The Quadro’s closest rival, the GeForce GTX 760M, scores 5236—just 0.5% higher—while the R5’s closest rival, the FirePro W4170M, scores 5034, which is 0.3% lower. Both GPUs are bracketed by a cluster of mid-range mobile parts within a 2% performance band.

The R5 M430 has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 4884, which the Quadro cannot match because it lacks Vulkan support. This is not a direct comparison, but it indicates the R5 can leverage modern APIs for certain workloads. The FP32 compute figures align with the benchmark results: the Quadro delivers 638.4 GFLOPS, while the R5 delivers 547.2 GFLOPS—a 16.7% theoretical advantage for the Quadro. However, the real-world OpenCL score only shows a 1.1% difference, suggesting the R5’s newer architecture extracts more efficiency from its shaders per FLOP.

In terms of texture and pixel processing, the Quadro is far ahead. Its 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate is 55.6% higher than the R5’s 17.10 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are nearly identical, with the R5 edging out the Quadro by 2.9% (6.840 vs 6.650 GPixel/s). The Quadro’s massive bandwidth advantage (80.00 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s) does not translate into a significant OpenCL win, likely because the benchmark is compute-bound rather than memory-bandwidth-bound.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 56 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 336 | 320 |

| TMUs | 56 | 20 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 638.4 GFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | Not listed |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins with a score of 5211, which is 1.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M430’s 5152.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M430 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4884. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has no listed Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth due to its 256-bit GDDR5 interface. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 has only 16.00 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in compute performance?

A: Yes, they are very close. The Quadro 4000M has a 1.1% OpenCL lead, but both sit at the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro’s FP32 output is 638.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the R5, but real-world scores show a near tie.

Q: Which GPU is physically larger?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a 332 mm² die with 1,950 million transistors. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 is much smaller at 56 mm² with 690 million transistors.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon R5 M430 be used to upgrade a laptop?

A: No, it is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) on a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, meaning it is integrated into the motherboard. The Quadro 4000M is an MXM module, which is designed for socket-based upgrades.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in raw compute throughput and bandwidth-bound workloads. Its FP32 performance of 638.4 GFLOPS is 16.7% higher than the R5 M430’s. The texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s is 55.6% higher, making it better suited for tasks that heavily sample textures. The 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is a 5x advantage, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The Quadro also has a 100 W TDP, indicating it is a full-power discrete part. This card wins for legacy MXM workstation upgrades where maximum compute and bandwidth are needed, particularly in OpenCL workloads.

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins on efficiency, modern API support, and memory capacity. It is built on a 28 nm process with a 12.3M / mm² transistor density, making it dramatically more efficient per square millimeter. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro lacks, and it has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4884. Its 4 GB of memory is double the Quadro’s 2 GB, which could help with larger texture pools, albeit at much lower bandwidth. The R5 also has a slightly higher pixel rate (6.840 vs 6.650 GPixel/s), giving it a marginal edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios. This card wins in modern, power-constrained laptops where Vulkan support and capacity matter more than raw bandwidth.

In the end, the data shows a 1.1% OpenCL victory for the Quadro 4000M, but the practical differences are architectural. The Quadro is a high-bandwidth, high-throughput discrete GPU from 2011. The R5 M430 is a low-power, modern-API integrated solution. Choose the Quadro for upgradeable workstations needing bandwidth; choose the R5 for integrated systems where Vulkan and memory capacity are priorities. Neither part is a performance leader, but each fits a distinct niche in the used and budget laptop market.