AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 represent two very different approaches to the low-end and professional GPU markets, respectively. The data shows a narrow victory for the AMD card in the single available benchmark, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5063 against the Quadro’s 4979, a delta of 1.7%. However, the specification sheets reveal a deeper story, where architectural age and memory design play significant roles in defining each card’s character.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is remarkably close. The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 points. This gives the R7 240 a 1.7% advantage, a margin that is effectively within run-to-run variance for most workloads. The data indicates a single win for the R7 240 and zero for the Quadro 4000 in this head-to-head.

Looking at the broader context, the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile. This places both cards in the lower tier of overall performance, but their nearest rivals tell different stories of performance clustering. The R7 240’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which matches its score exactly with a 0% delta. The Quadro 4000, on the other hand, has a more unusual rival in the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which trails by only 0.2% — proof of the Quadro’s still-relevant compute capabilities in this specific benchmark.

The margin between the two cards is so slim that the 5063 versus 4979 score difference is almost negligible. For a user comparing raw compute throughput, the R7 240 edges ahead, but the data does not suggest a decisive victory. The R7 240’s score of 5063 places it marginally above the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) and AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), while the Quadro 4000’s 4979 puts it just below those same integrated and entry-level parts.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 240’s victory in the OpenCL benchmark indicates a slight edge in general-purpose compute tasks. Its higher shading unit count of 320, compared to 256 on the Quadro, contributes to a peak FP32 performance of 499.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. This makes the R7 240 marginally better suited for compute-heavy applications that leverage OpenCL, such as video encoding or physics simulations, though the difference is minimal.

The Quadro 4000, despite losing the benchmark, has structural advantages that suggest it wins in memory-intensive scenarios. Its memory bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s is over three times that of the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s. This comes from a 256-bit bus paired with GDDR5 memory, versus the R7 240’s 128-bit bus and DDR3. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited — such as large texture fetches or certain scientific visualizations — the Quadro 4000 would likely pull ahead, even if the synthetic benchmark does not capture this.

The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s versus the R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate performance for traditional rasterization tasks. Its 32 ROPs double the R7 240’s 8, which could improve performance in anti-aliasing and high-resolution rendering. In contrast, the R7 240’s texture rate is 15.60 GTexel/s, slightly above the Quadro’s 15.20 GTexel/s, giving the AMD card a narrow advantage in texture-heavy scenes.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The R7 240 is built on GCN 1.0, AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture, using the Oland chip. This is a 28 nm design fabricated by TSMC, packing 950 million transistors into a die size of 77 mm². The small die yields a high transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per mm², reflecting the more modern manufacturing process.

The Quadro 4000 uses the Fermi architecture, NVIDIA’s GF100 chip, which was a flagship design of its time. This chip is built on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC, but is substantially larger at 529 mm². It houses 3,100 million transistors, but the older process node results in a lower transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The Fermi architecture was designed for high compute throughput in professional settings, which explains its larger memory bus and higher TDP.

The R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. This gives the R7 240 a modern API advantage, particularly for Linux users or those running Vulkan-based applications. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, maintaining parity on that front.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is in power consumption. The R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 draws 142 W and needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU ratings reflect this: 200 W for the R7 240 versus 300 W for the Quadro 4000. This makes the R7 240 a drop-in solution for low-power systems, whereas the Quadro demands a more robust power supply.

Memory configuration diverges sharply. Both have 2 GB of memory, but the R7 240 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro uses GDDR5 at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s 256-bit bus gives it 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, more than triple the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s. The R7 240’s memory clock is higher in MHz, but the effective data rate of the GDDR5 on the Quadro is significantly faster.

Physical dimensions also differ. The R7 240 measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the Quadro 4000 is 241 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 20 mm wide. Both are single-slot cards, but the Quadro is substantially larger, which may affect case compatibility. The bus interface differs as well: the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are distinct, with the R7 240 offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, while the Quadro provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark score, the AMD Radeon R7 240 or the NVIDIA Quadro 4000?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979. The R7 240 wins by a 1.7% margin.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, providing 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus with DDR3, offering 28.80 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W and needs no power connector, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 does not list Vulkan support in its specifications.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a higher pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s versus the AMD Radeon R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s. The R7 240 has a slightly higher texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 15.20 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on use case. For a low-power, modern-compute-oriented system, the AMD Radeon R7 240 is the logical pick. Its 30 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and support for Vulkan and DirectX 12 (11_1) make it a versatile card for basic computing and light OpenCL workloads. Its 1.7% benchmark lead over the Quadro 4000 reinforces its edge in general compute.

For professional applications that rely on memory bandwidth or require DisplayPort outputs, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the better option. Its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth and 7.600 GPixel/s pixel rate provide a foundation for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, and its two DisplayPort outputs are more suited to multi-monitor professional setups than the R7 240’s VGA output. However, its 142 W TDP and larger physical footprint demand a more accommodating chassis and power supply.

The R7 240 is built on a 28 nm process with a higher transistor density, making it a more efficient design. The Quadro 4000’s 40 nm process and massive die size are artifacts of an older era, but its professional origins are evident in the memory subsystem. Ultimately, the R7 240 wins on efficiency and modern API support, while the Quadro 4000 wins on bandwidth and display connectivity. The benchmark scores are nearly identical, so the decision rests on these secondary characteristics rather than raw performance.