AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s benchmark score compare to its closest rival, the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB?

A: The Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 0.2% higher than the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB’s average score of 4,970. This places them in nearly identical performance territory.

Q: What is the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX’s strongest benchmark result, and how does it rank globally?

A: The R6 M255DX’s only listed benchmark is Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 4,867. This puts it at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, one percentile below the Quadro 4000’s 29th percentile.

Q: How does the R6 M255DX fare against the GeForce 940MX according to the data?

A: The R6 M255DX scores 4,867, which is 0.5% higher than the GeForce 940MX’s 4,844. The delta is small enough that the two are effectively interchangeable in raw compute.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density, and what does that imply?

A: The R6 M255DX’s chip has a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per mm², more than double the Quadro 4000’s 5.9M per mm². This reflects the R6’s much smaller 56 mm² die versus the Quadro’s 529 mm² die.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as “System Dependent.”

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the Quadro 4000 and the R6 M255DX are marked as end-of-life products in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The data reveals a clear split in where each GPU excels. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is a discrete, single-slot card built for workstation duty. Its 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth and 256-bit bus width gives it a substantial advantage in memory-heavy tasks where local VRAM matters. The Quadro’s 32 ROPS and 32 TMUs, combined with a 7.600 GPixel/s pixel rate, suggest it can handle fill-rate-bound workloads more effectively. Its 241 mm length and 111 mm height indicate a full-size card that slots into a desktop workstation.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX takes a completely different approach. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no dedicated memory, relying on system-shared memory. This makes it fundamentally a mobile or small-form-factor solution, where space and power constraints dominate. The R6 has more shading units (320 versus 256) and a higher texture rate (17.10 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s), which points to an advantage in shader-heavy compute workloads. Its 28 nm process node and smaller 56 mm² die make it far more power-efficient per square millimeter, though the Quadro’s larger die compensates with more raw resources.

The benchmark data shows the Quadro edges out the R6 in raw score (4,979 versus 4,867), but the R6 counters with a better delta against its own nearest rivals. The R6 is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce 940MX and 0.2% ahead of the GTX 560M, while the Quadro is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB but 0.8% behind the R5 M430. Neither GPU dominates; they win in different contexts.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The Quadro 4000 is built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is a massive chip with 3,100 million transistors spread over 529 mm². Fermi was designed for compute-heavy professional workloads, and the Quadro’s 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPS reflect that focus on balanced throughput.

The R6 M255DX uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically the Jet chip, on a much more modern 28 nm process. It packs 690 million transistors into just 56 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm² versus the Quadro’s 5.9M per mm². GCN 1.0 was designed to scale from integrated parts up to discrete cards, and the R6’s 320 shading units and 20 TMUs show a shader-heavy design. The R6 has fewer ROPS (8 versus 32), which aligns with its lower pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 7.600 GPixel/s.

API support differs notably. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The R6 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means the R6 has a modern API advantage, particularly for Vulkan-based applications, which may explain why its only benchmark is a Vulkan test.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different: the Quadro uses dedicated GDDR5 with a fixed 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, while the R6 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host system. This makes the Quadro far more predictable in memory-bound scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro 4000 has a memory clock of 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the R6 M255DX has base and boost clocks of 780 MHz and 855 MHz respectively — the Quadro has no base or boost clocks listed. The Quadro’s FP32 compute is 486.4 GFLOPS, while the R6 achieves 547.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a 256-bit memory bus; the R6’s bus width is “System Shared.” The Quadro’s TDP is 142 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the R6 has no TDP or PSU requirement listed, consistent with its IGP nature.

The Quadro requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length. The R6 is an IGP with no power connectors, no dimensions listed, and its display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent.” The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16; the R6 uses an IGP bus interface. The Quadro was released in November 2010 with a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD; the R6 was released in January 2014 with no MSRP listed.

Transistor counts tell the scale story: the Quadro has 3,100 million transistors versus the R6’s 690 million. Die size is 529 mm² versus 56 mm². The Quadro’s 32 ROPS dwarf the R6’s 8 ROPS, while the R6’s 320 shading units exceed the Quadro’s 256.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the data, so the comparison relies on each GPU’s single benchmark result and its position among nearest rivals. The Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 in Geekbench OpenCL. The R6 M255DX scores 4,867 in Geekbench Vulkan. The raw difference is 112 points, or roughly 2.3% in favor of the Quadro. However, these are different benchmark suites, so a direct comparison is not apples-to-apples.

Looking at rival deltas provides more context. The Quadro is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970) and 1% ahead of the R7 M360 (4,931). It is 0.4% behind the R7 Graphics (4,998) and 0.8% behind the R5 M430 (5,018). The R6 M255DX is 0.2% ahead of the GTX 560M (4,855) and 0.5% ahead of the GeForce 940MX (4,844). It is 0.5% behind the GTS 450 (4,893) and 0.7% behind the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901).

The biggest win for the Quadro is its 1% advantage over the R7 M360, a rival that the R6 does not face. The biggest win for the R6 is its 0.5% edge over the GeForce 940MX, a popular entry-level discrete GPU. The Quadro’s closest rival delta (0.2% over the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB) shows it remains competitive with a much newer card, while the R6’s closest rival delta (0.2% over the GTX 560M) shows it sits in the same performance class as a decade-old mobile GPU.

The percentile rankings reinforce the near-parity: the Quadro sits at the 29th percentile, the R6 at the 28th. Both are firmly in the lower half of all GPUs, indicating neither is a high-performance part by modern standards.

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two aging GPUs that achieve similar benchmark scores through very different means. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is a professional workstation card with dedicated memory, a large die, and a high TDP of 142 W. Its 4,979 OpenCL score and 29th percentile ranking suggest it remains usable for OpenCL-based compute tasks, and its 0.2% edge over the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is remarkable given the Quadro’s 2010 release date.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is an integrated solution with no dedicated memory and no TDP listed. Its 4,867 Vulkan score and 28th percentile ranking show it trades blows with entry-level discrete cards like the GeForce 940MX. Its 320 shading units and higher FP32 throughput (547.2 GFLOPS) give it a theoretical compute advantage, but the lack of dedicated memory likely limits real-world performance.

Who should pick which? The Quadro 4000 suits anyone needing a discrete, single-slot card with dedicated VRAM and multiple display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort). Its 89.86 GB/s memory bandwidth and 256-bit bus make it the choice for memory-bound workstation tasks. The R6 M255DX is for portable or compact systems where an IGP is the only option — its performance is system-dependent, and its Vulkan support gives it modern API compatibility that the Quadro lacks.

Neither GPU is a winner on raw performance; both sit near the 28-29th percentile. The Quadro wins on memory bandwidth and fill rate, the R6 wins on shader count and API modernity. The data suggests that for OpenCL workloads, the Quadro is marginally stronger, while for Vulkan workloads, the R6 holds its own. The Quadro’s 1,199 USD launch MSRP reflects its professional positioning, but both are end-of-life parts now. The choice comes down to form factor and memory needs: discrete with dedicated VRAM versus integrated with system-shared memory. The benchmark data shows they are close enough that system context — not raw score — should drive the decision.