AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD Radeon R5 M430 sit at opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The Quadro M4000 is a professional workstation card built for sustained compute and graphics workloads, while the R5 M430 is a low-power mobile part aimed at basic laptop duties. The head-to-head results are lopsided, but the data also shows where each card still has a role to play.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two directly comparable benchmark results are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and in both cases the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 dominates by a massive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the R5 M430’s 5,152. That is a 271.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: the Quadro M4000 posts 24,640 while the R5 M430 manages just 4,884, a 404.5% difference. These are not close contests by any measure.

The magnitude of these deltas matters. A 271% lead in OpenCL means the Quadro M4000 is roughly 3.7 times faster in that workload. The Vulkan result is even more extreme, with the Quadro M4000 delivering over five times the score. For any application that relies on general-purpose GPU compute or modern graphics APIs, the Quadro M4000 is in a completely different performance class.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. The Quadro M4000 has an average score of 5,467 across all its tested benchmarks, while the R5 M430 averages 5,018. That overall gap is smaller than the head-to-head numbers suggest, but it is important to note that the Quadro M4000 has ten benchmark results in its profile, including older DirectX tests, while the R5 M430 only has two. The Quadro M4000’s best single result is its Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,640, while its Passmark G3D score sits at 6,680. The R5 M430’s best result is its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,152.

Looking at the nearest rivals helps contextualize each card’s standing. The Quadro M4000’s average score of 5,467 puts it only 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444). It is also 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130. These are tight margins, meaning the Quadro M4000 is squarely in a mid-range pack by average score, despite its strong compute performance in specific tests. The R5 M430’s average of 5,018 is 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W4170M (5,034) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998). It is also 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M340.

What the head-to-head data shows is that the Quadro M4000 wins both available comparisons, and wins them by enormous percentages. The R5 M430 has no winning benchmark in the head-to-head set.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000 wins in every category where data exists for comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are vastly superior, which points to strengths in compute-heavy tasks like rendering, scientific simulation, and any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan for general-purpose processing. The card’s other benchmark results reinforce this: its Passmark G3D score of 6,680 indicates strong DirectX performance, and its Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,660 shows it can handle compute workloads outside of the Geekbench suite. The Quadro M4000 is also a professional card with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 256-bit bus, giving it 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. That memory configuration is built for large datasets and high-resolution textures, which are common in professional visualization and CAD work.

The R5 M430 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. It does have a Passmark G2D score of 673 from its overall profile, but that is not a head-to-head comparison. Its strengths are qualitative rather than quantitative. It is an integrated-class part (marked as IGP slot width) with a 64-bit DDR3 memory interface, which means it is designed for basic laptop functions like video playback, light productivity, and older games. It uses just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, making it a very small and power-efficient chip. The R5 M430 also has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, which are modest figures that suit its low-power role.

For the Quadro M4000, the wins are in raw compute and modern API performance. For the R5 M430, the wins are in simplicity and low resource usage, though no benchmark data supports a performance advantage.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is built on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The card has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. Its pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance rated at 2.573 TFLOPS. Memory runs at 1502 MHz, which translates to 6 Gbps effective, across an 8 GB GDDR5 pool on a 256-bit bus. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 uses the Jet chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. It has only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GPU has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s and texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s, with FP32 output of 547.2 GFLOPS. Memory is 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), for a bandwidth of just 16.00 GB/s. The R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The differences are stark. The Quadro M4000 has roughly 7.5 times the transistor count, over 5 times the shading units, and 12 times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput is about 4.7 times higher. The R5 M430’s only advantage is its tiny die size and lower complexity, which makes it suitable for integrated or low-power mobile use. The Quadro M4000 also has a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin power connector, while the R5 M430 has no power connector listed and is marked as IGP, meaning it draws power from the system rather than a dedicated supply.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the far more capable GPU, winning both head-to-head benchmarks by 271.1% and 404.5%. Its average benchmark score of 5,467 is higher than the R5 M430’s 5,018, and its percentile rank of 32 versus 30 shows it sits slightly higher among all GPUs. Anyone needing professional compute, large memory pools, or modern API support should choose the Quadro M4000.

The R5 M430 is not a competitor in the same class. It has no benchmark wins, a lower average score, and a much smaller hardware footprint. Its 30th percentile ranking puts it near the bottom of the GPU hierarchy. The only reason to pick the R5 M430 is for a system where the Quadro M4000’s size, power draw, or cooling requirements are impossible to accommodate. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card at 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, requiring a 300 W PSU. The R5 M430 has no listed dimensions or PSU requirement, making it a drop-in part for existing laptops.

For a builder, the choice is clear: the Quadro M4000 delivers professional-grade performance, while the R5 M430 is only suitable for basic tasks where any dedicated GPU is better than none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the R5 M430’s 5,152, a 271.1% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 24,640 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4,884 for the R5 M430, a 404.5% difference.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro M4000 averages 5,467 across its tests, while the R5 M430 averages 5,018.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth; the R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die; the R5 M430 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The Quadro M4000 delivers 2.573 TFLOPS, while the R5 M430 manages 547.2 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | AMD Radeon R5 M430 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | Jet |

| 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 |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 855 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 320 |

| TMUs | 104 | 20 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 6.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 17.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.573 TFLOPS | 547.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

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

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

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 in) length, 111 mm (4.4 in) height | Not listed |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 30 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5467 | 5018 |