AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and AMD Radeon R5 M435 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target very different segments of the laptop market. Based on the available benchmark data, the Quadro K4000M holds a narrow but definitive lead in raw compute performance, though the R5 M435 counters with a more modern feature set and a much smaller physical footprint.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark in the comparison suite is Geekbench OpenCL, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859. This gives the Quadro K4000M a 2.2% advantage — a modest but consistent win. The delta is small enough that real-world application differences would likely be imperceptible, but the data shows a clear winner.

To contextualize this margin, consider each card’s nearest rivals. The Quadro K4000M sits essentially at parity with the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 5987 (a 0% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, which scores 5982 (0.1% slower). It is also within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996). This places the K4000M in a tightly clustered performance band where a few points separate top competitors. Its 34th percentile ranking among all GPUs confirms it is a mid-tier performer, not a flagship.

The Radeon R5 M435, scoring 5859, sits slightly lower in the pack. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M465, scores 5841, meaning the R5 M435 is actually 0.3% ahead of that card. However, it trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) by 1.2%, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955) by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957) by 1.6%. With a 33rd percentile ranking, it sits just one percentile point below the K4000M, indicating they occupy nearly the same tier in the overall GPU hierarchy.

The head-to-head data shows only one test, and the Quadro K4000M wins it. There are no benchmark categories where the R5 M435 emerges victorious. The 2.2% delta is the entire story: the older NVIDIA part edges out the newer AMD part in raw OpenCL compute, but neither card is a performance powerhouse by modern standards.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the faster GPU in this matchup. It wins the only benchmark available, and its score of 5986 versus 5859 means it delivers roughly 2% more compute throughput. For users whose primary concern is raw performance in OpenCL workloads, the choice is clear.

However, the verdict is not one-sided in every dimension. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is a much newer design, released in 2016 versus 2012 for the Quadro. It also draws no stated TDP (the K4000M is rated at 100 W), and it uses an IGP slot width compared to the K4000M’s MXM Module form factor. For thin-and-light laptops or systems with strict thermal budgets, the R5 M435 is the more practical engineering choice, even if it loses the compute race.

Who should pick which? If the application is compute-bound and the laptop chassis can accommodate the K4000M’s MXM-B (3.0) interface and 100 W power draw, the Quadro K4000M is the superior option. If the priority is a modern, low-footprint solution with a newer architecture and PCIe 3.0 x8 connectivity, the Radeon R5 M435 is defensible despite its lower score. The benchmark data favors NVIDIA, but the full spec sheet tells a more nuanced story.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000M wins the only measured category: Geekbench OpenCL. Its 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs give it a substantial hardware resource advantage over the R5 M435’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates directly into higher theoretical rates: 12.02 GPixel/s pixel fill rate versus 8.240 GPixel/s, and 48.08 GTexel/s texture rate versus 20.60 GTexel/s. The K4000M also has a wider 256-bit memory bus and 4 GB of GDDR5, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth — more than double the R5 M435’s 36.00 GB/s on a 64-bit bus with 2 GB.

The Radeon R5 M435 wins on efficiency and integration. It has no listed TDP, whereas the Quadro K4000M is rated at 100 W. It uses a 56 mm² die with 690 million transistors on the same 28 nm TSMC process, while the K4000M uses a 294 mm² die with 3,540 million transistors. The R5 M435’s smaller footprint and IGP form factor make it suitable for compact designs, while the K4000M’s MXM module demands more physical space and cooling. The R5 M435 also supports a higher boost clock (1030 MHz versus 601 MHz for the K4000M), which partially compensates for its fewer cores.

In terms of API support, the R5 M435 has a slight edge with DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the K4000M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the K4000M has a marginally newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170). For legacy compatibility, the K4000M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the R5 M435’s lineage runs from Solar System to Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, which is 2.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M435’s score of 5859.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000M compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.1% faster). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000) by 0.2% and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996) by 0.2%.

Q: What is the Radeon R5 M435’s position relative to its nearest competitors?

A: It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841) but 1.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929), 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955), and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957).

Q: Do the two cards have the same memory configuration?

A: No. The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 boosts to 1030 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M operates at a fixed 601 MHz with no boost.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro K4000M was released in 2012, and the Radeon R5 M435 was released in 2016.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die — a density of 12.3M per mm², which is slightly higher.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 3:1 ratio in shading units and 4:1 ratio in ROPs explains the K4000M’s advantage in fill rates: 12.02 GPixel/s and 48.08 GTexel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. The K4000M also delivers 1,153.9 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R5 M435 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The K4000M uses a 256-bit bus, the R5 M435 a 64-bit bus. This, combined with different memory clocks (700 MHz base / 2.8 Gbps effective for NVIDIA, 1125 MHz / 4.5 Gbps effective for AMD), results in 89.60 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

API support shows a generation gap. The K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a minor revision. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions are close: 1.2.175 for NVIDIA, 1.2.170 for AMD. The K4000M’s generation is listed as “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)” with predecessor Quadro Fermi-M and successor Quadro Maxwell-M. The R5 M435’s generation is “Gem System (R5 M400)” with predecessor Solar System and successor Polaris Mobile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The K4000M has a base and boost clock of 601 MHz, whereas the R5 M435 runs at 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. Memory size differs: 4 GB versus 2 GB. Bus width differs: 256 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth differs: 89.60 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all higher on the K4000M (960/80/32 versus 320/20/8). Pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, texture rate 48.08 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

The power and form factor specifications are also distinct. The K4000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. The R5 M435 has no listed TDP, uses an IGP slot width with PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and has no power connector data. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. Transistor count and die size differ as noted (3,540 million / 294 mm² versus 690 million / 56 mm²). The K4000M has no launch MSRP listed, and neither card has a suggested PSU rating. Both are end-of-life, with release dates of 2012 for the K4000M and 2016 for the R5 M435.