AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, and the benchmark data reflects a profound performance gulf. The R5 M435 is an integrated-class part from AMD’s mobile lineup, while the Quadro M4000 is a professional desktop workstation card. Their head-to-head results are stark, but the numbers also reveal that each product occupies a specific niche where its design choices make sense.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not a close contest. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5,859. This gives the Quadro a decisive edge of 13,259 points, translating to a 69.4% advantage. In other words, the Quadro M4000 delivers roughly 3.3 times the raw compute throughput of the R5 M435 in this specific test. This is a massive delta, and it is consistent with the specification gap between the two chips—the M4000 has 1,664 shading units versus just 320 on the R5 M435, and its FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS compared to 659.2 GFLOPS.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the R5 M435’s average score sits at 5,859, placing it in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5,841, a 0.3% gap), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929, -1.2%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955, -1.6%). These are all tightly clustered within about 2% of each other, indicating that the R5 M435 is right in the middle of a pack of low-end mobile and integrated graphics solutions. It is neither a standout nor a laggard in its class.

The Quadro M4000, despite its much higher raw score, actually has a slightly lower average benchmark score of 5,467 when all its tests are averaged together. This is because its benchmark suite includes several low-scoring API-specific tests—like Passmark DirectX 10 at 33, DirectX 11 at 49, and DirectX 12 at 26—which drag down the average. Its percentile is 32, which is nearly identical to the R5 M435’s 33. This is a curious data point: the M4000 utterly dominates in OpenCL compute, yet its overall standing is similar. The explanation is that its nearest rivals are also low-scoring parts: the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, -0.3%), AMD Radeon 610M (5,444, 0.4%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501, -0.6%). The averages are skewed by the inclusion of legacy DirectX tests where the M4000 performs poorly relative to its compute potential.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations and market segments. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Jet" chip, and belongs to the "Gem System (R5 M400)" generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors packed into a tiny 56 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.3 million per mm², which is modest by modern standards but reasonable for a low-power integrated part.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000, in contrast, uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, from the "Quadro Maxwell (Mx000)" generation. It also uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the die is substantially larger at 398 mm², housing 5,200 million transistors. The density is slightly higher at 13.1 million per mm². This is a professional-grade chip designed for compute and rendering tasks, not for power efficiency in a laptop.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s. That is more than five times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for workstation workloads that shuttle large datasets. The R5 M435’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the M4000’s runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Feature support also differs. The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and a newer Vulkan 1.4. The higher Vulkan revision on the M4000 suggests better long-term driver support for modern APIs. The R5 M435 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the M4000 is a single-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x16. The M4000 also has a 120 W TDP and requires a 300 W power supply and one 6-pin connector, whereas the R5 M435 has no listed TDP or power connectors, reflecting its low-power integrated nature.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a clear split: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior performer in every measurable head-to-head test, but the AMD Radeon R5 M435 has its own advantages in the context of its intended use case.

The Quadro M4000 wins decisively in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 19,118 versus 5,859 is the headline number. It also has a strong showing in Vulkan compute (24,640) and Passmark G3D (6,680), which are not compared directly against the R5 M435 but indicate robust general-purpose and 3D rendering capabilities. For professional applications like CAD, simulation, or video editing, the M4000’s 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 8 GB of VRAM are significant assets. Its pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s and texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s dwarf the R5 M435’s 8.24 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s, respectively.

The R5 M435’s strength is not performance but integration. As an IGP with no power connectors and no listed TDP, it is designed to be embedded in a portable device. Its display outputs are "portable device dependent," meaning it does not drive standalone monitors. It is a solution for lightweight laptops where battery life and thermal headroom matter more than raw fps. Its 33rd percentile ranking shows it is competitive with other low-end parts like the R7 M465 and UHD 730, which is all that can be expected from this class.

In terms of the head-to-head benchmark count, the Quadro M4000 wins 1 out of 1 tests. There are no tests where the R5 M435 comes out ahead. However, the R5 M435’s lack of a TDP rating and its IGP slot width suggest it can operate in environments where the M4000’s 120 W draw and single-slot physical footprint would be impossible.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, which is 69.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M435’s 5,859.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus, while the R5 M435 has 36.00 GB/s from a 64-bit bus. The M4000 offers more than five times the bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is a higher feature level.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, whereas the R5 M435 has 690 million on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life. The R5 M435 was released in May 2016, and the M4000 was released in June 2015.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The R5 M435 has an average score of 5,859, while the M4000 averages 5,467. The M4000’s average is pulled down by low scores in legacy DirectX tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is overwhelmingly more powerful than the AMD Radeon R5 M435. In the only shared benchmark, it leads by 69.4%. Its architectural advantages—more shading units, higher memory bandwidth, larger die, and newer API support—make it the clear choice for any task that requires compute throughput or large frame buffers. If a workload involves OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the M4000 is the only viable option of the two.

However, the verdict is not simply "buy the M4000." The R5 M435 is an IGP with no power connectors and no TDP listed, meaning it is designed for mobile devices where the M4000 physically cannot fit. The M4000 requires a 300 W power supply, a 6-pin connector, and a PCIe x16 slot, plus a single-slot chassis. For a laptop or embedded system, the R5 M435 is the only choice that makes sense, despite its lower performance.

The R5 M435’s percentile ranking (33) is nearly identical to the M4000’s (32), which is a statistical quirk. This happens because the M4000’s average is diluted by poor scores in Passmark DirectX 9 (113) and DirectX 10 (33), which are irrelevant to its intended professional use. The R5 M435’s single benchmark result is consistent, but it represents a much lower ceiling.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon R5 M435 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000:

• Chip: Jet vs GM204
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Gem System (R5 M400) vs Quadro Maxwell (Mx000)
• Transistors: 690 million vs 5,200 million
• Die Size: 56 mm² vs 398 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² vs 13.1M / mm²
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 36.00 GB/s vs 192.3 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) vs 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Shading Units: 320 vs 1,664
• TMUs: 20 vs 104
• ROPs: 8 vs 64
• Pixel Rate: 8.240 GPixel/s vs 49.47 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.60 GTexel/s vs 80.39 GTexel/s
• FP32: 659.2 GFLOPS vs 2.573 TFLOPS
• TDP: Not listed vs 120 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: None vs 300 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 4x DisplayPort 1.2
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• DirectX Version: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1)
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height
• Release Date: 2016-05-14 vs 2015-06-28