AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and AMD Radeon R5 M435 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet their benchmark data reveals a surprisingly narrow performance gap. The Quadro K4000 is a workstation-class card from 2013, while the R5 M435 is a mobile integrated GPU from 2016. Their average benchmark scores sit just 123 points apart, with the Quadro K4000 achieving an average of 5982 against the R5 M435's 5859. Both cards land in the lower third of overall GPU performance, with the Quadro K4000 at the 34th percentile and the R5 M435 at the 33rd percentile. The only direct head-to-head benchmark — Geekbench OpenCL — shows the Quadro K4000 winning by 16.3%, scoring 6816 versus 5859. This single data point frames a broader narrative about how architectural age, memory bandwidth, and compute resources interact in ways that defy simple generational assumptions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 posts a decisive victory. The Quadro K4000 scores 6816, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 manages 5859, resulting in a 16.3% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This is not a marginal win — it represents a substantial compute advantage that likely stems from the Quadro's far larger silicon and memory subsystem. The Quadro K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, nearly double the R5 M435's 659.2 GFLOPS. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: the Quadro K4000 offers 134.8 GB/s against the R5 M435's 36.00 GB/s, a 3.7x gap that directly impacts OpenCL workloads sensitive to data movement.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Quadro K4000's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, which averages 5986 — just 0.1% higher. The AMD FirePro W4100 also sits at 5987, again 0.1% ahead. Interestingly, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server appears in the Quadro K4000's rival list with an average score of 5996, only 0.2% higher, though this likely reflects benchmark clustering rather than actual performance equivalence. The R5 M435's rivals tell a different story: the AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841 (0.3% behind), while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 reaches 5929 (1.2% ahead). The NVIDIA Quadro K620M and AMD Radeon HD 8730M both score around 5955-5957, putting them 1.6% ahead of the R5 M435.

What these numbers imply is that the Quadro K4000, despite being three years older, holds a clear computational edge over the R5 M435 in raw OpenCL throughput. The 16.3% delta is consistent with the hardware specifications — more shading units, wider memory bus, and higher pixel/texture rates. However, the overall percentile rankings (34 vs 33) suggest that in the broader GPU landscape, both are similarly positioned as entry-level performers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die — a density of 12.3M per mm². While the R5 M435 has a slightly higher transistor density, the Quadro K4000's sheer scale — nearly 3.7x more transistors and nearly 4x the die area — provides far more compute resources.

Compute unit counts reinforce this disparity. The Quadro K4000 features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The R5 M435 offers 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates follow accordingly: the Quadro K4000 achieves 12.96 GPixel/s and 51.84 GTexel/s, while the R5 M435 manages 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. Memory configurations diverge completely — the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, while the R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. This explains the massive bandwidth difference: 134.8 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s.

Clocking strategies also differ. The Quadro K4000 lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective). The R5 M435 has explicit clocks: 780 MHz base, 1030 MHz boost, and 1125 MHz memory (4.5 Gbps effective). The R5 M435's boost clock of 1030 MHz is likely its attempt to compensate for fewer cores, but the math does not close the gap. API support shows minor differences — the Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both offer OpenGL 4.6.

Form factor and power delivery present another contrast. The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot card requiring 1x 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, with an 80 W TDP. The R5 M435 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and no TDP listed, designed for portable devices. The Quadro K4000 runs on PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R5 M435 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 — a newer but narrower interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 dominates in FP32 throughput with 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus the AMD Radeon R5 M435's 659.2 GFLOPS. This nearly 2x advantage is reflected in the 16.3% OpenCL benchmark win for the Quadro K4000.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus delivering 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M435 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with just 36.00 GB/s. The Quadro K4000 provides approximately 3.7x more memory bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs similar in overall performance ranking?

A: Yes. The Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M435 is at the 33rd percentile. Their average benchmark scores (5982 vs 5859) differ by only about 2%, despite the large architectural differences.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card?

A: The Quadro K4000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (avg score 5986, 0.1% higher) and AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0.1% higher). The R5 M435's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841, 0.3% lower), with the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929, 1.2% higher) not far behind.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Quadro K4000 has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the physical and power characteristics?

A: The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot card, 241 mm long, requiring 1x 6-pin power and a 250 W suggested PSU, with an 80 W TDP. The R5 M435 is an IGP with no listed dimensions, power connectors, or TDP, designed for portable devices.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | AMD Radeon R5 M435 |

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

| Chip | GK106 | Jet |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | Gem System (R5 M400) |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1030 MHz |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 24 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2016-05-14 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Polaris Mobile |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins decisively in every measurable compute category. It offers 2.4x more shading units (768 vs 320), 3.2x more TMUs (64 vs 20), and 3x more ROPs (24 vs 8). Its pixel rate is 57% higher (12.96 vs 8.240 GPixel/s), and its texture rate is 2.5x higher (51.84 vs 20.60 GTexel/s). The FP32 throughput advantage is 88.7% (1,244.2 vs 659.2 GFLOPS). Memory bandwidth is the biggest differentiator, with the Quadro K4000 providing 3.7x more bandwidth. The Quadro K4000 also wins the only direct benchmark, posting a 16.3% higher OpenCL score. Its 3 GB memory capacity exceeds the R5 M435's 2 GB, which matters for larger datasets in workstation workloads.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins in efficiency and integration. As an IGP, it requires no power connectors, lists no TDP, and is designed for portable devices where space and power are constrained. It uses a newer PCIe 3.0 x8 interface compared to the Quadro K4000's PCIe 2.0 x16. The R5 M435 also has a slightly higher transistor density (12.3M vs 11.5M per mm²) and supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the Quadro K4000's DirectX 12 (11_0). It was released later (2016 vs 2013) and has a newer Vulkan version (1.2.170 vs 1.2.175, though this is marginal). In the nearest-rival context, the R5 M435's closest competitor (AMD Radeon R7 M465) is 0.3% behind, suggesting it holds its own within its immediate peer group, while the Quadro K4000's closest rival (Quadro K4000M) is 0.1% ahead.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior compute device by every specification and benchmark metric. Its OpenCL score of 6816 versus 5859 represents a 16.3% advantage, and its hardware resources — 768 shading units, 134.8 GB/s bandwidth, 1,244.2 GFLOPS — are consistently 2-4x greater than the R5 M435's capabilities. Users needing raw GPU compute for OpenCL workloads, high-resolution texture processing, or memory-intensive tasks should choose the Quadro K4000 without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 appeals to a different use case entirely. As an IGP with no power connectors and no listed TDP, it is built for mobility and low-power integration in laptops or compact systems. Its 2 GB memory and 36.00 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for basic graphics acceleration, and its 33rd percentile ranking places it just one point below the Quadro K4000's 34th percentile in the global GPU distribution. For users prioritizing portability, silent operation, and minimal power draw over peak performance, the R5 M435 is the pragmatic choice.

The verdict from the data is that these GPUs are not direct competitors — they serve different markets. The Quadro K4000 is a workstation card for professional tasks, evidenced by its 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, single-slot design, and 80 W TDP. The R5 M435 is an integrated solution for portable devices, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro K4000 wins on performance, while the R5 M435 wins on integration and efficiency. Neither card approaches modern performance levels — both sit below the 35th percentile — but within their respective niches, each fulfills its intended role. Buyers should select based on whether they need standalone compute power (Quadro K4000) or embedded graphics for a compact system (R5 M435).