AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and AMD Radeon R7 240 are both end-of-life parts that land in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, but they serve fundamentally different masters. The Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation chip from 2011, built on the Fermi architecture and packaged as an MXM module for laptops. The R7 240 is a 2013 desktop card from AMD’s Volcanic Islands generation, a single-slot, low-profile affair. Benchmark data shows the Quadro 4000M wins the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, by 2.9% (5211 vs 5063). That margin is slim, but the underlying hardware tells a more interesting story.

Who should pick which? If the workload is a legacy mobile workstation application that relies on OpenCL compute and you have a compatible MXM-B laptop, the Quadro 4000M is the only choice that fits that form factor. Its 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs give it a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s — both ahead of the R7 240. The R7 240, however, is a desktop card with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, making it trivially easy to slot into an office PC. It also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro lacks entirely. For a system that needs modern API support and low power draw, the R7 240 is the practical pick despite the benchmark deficit.

The data does not paint either as a performance winner. The 2.9% delta in Geekbench is within the noise of the rival comparisons: the Quadro 4000M sits within 1.4% of the GeForce 940M and 1.1% of the Quadro K3100M, while the R7 240 is essentially tied with the Radeon R7 M340 (deltaPct 0). The verdict is simple: the Quadro 4000M wins compute benchmarks, but the R7 240 wins on platform flexibility, API coverage, and power efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. The Quadro leads by 2.9%.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: Both have 2 GB of memory, but the Quadro 4000M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 240 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and requires a 200 W suggested PSU. The Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP. No power connectors are needed on either card.

Q: How does the transistor density compare?

A: The R7 240 packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding 12.3M transistors per mm². The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, for a density of 5.9M per mm².

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The Quadro 4000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for laptops. The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, using a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundry processes. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip, built on the Fermi architecture at 40 nm by TSMC. The die is 332 mm² and contains 1,950 million transistors, which works out to a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². Fermi was designed for compute-heavy workloads, which explains the high shading unit count and texture throughput.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip, based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but at 28 nm. The die is drastically smaller at 77 mm², with 950 million transistors — a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The 28 nm node allows AMD to pack more transistors per area despite the smaller chip. GCN 1.0 was AMD’s first unified compute architecture, and it brings Vulkan support to the R7 240, a feature Fermi lacks.

The shading unit counts are close: 336 on the Quadro versus 320 on the R7 240. But the NVIDIA chip has 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs, while the AMD chip has only 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs. That difference is stark. The Quadro’s texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s is 70% higher than the R7 240’s 15.60 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s beats the AMD part’s 6.240 GPixel/s. The Fermi chip is also older in release terms — the Quadro launched in February 2011, while the R7 240 arrived in October 2013.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The Quadro 4000M uses GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering only 28.80 GB/s. That bandwidth gap is enormous and directly impacts compute and texture-heavy loads. The R7 240 compensates with a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, while the Quadro’s core clocks are not listed in the data, though its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The R7 240’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | — | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | — | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 320 |

| TMUs | 56 | 20 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 638.4 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | — | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |

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

| Vulkan | — | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | Sea Islands |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | Pirate Islands |

| Dimensions | — | 168 mm length, 69 mm height |

The Quadro 4000M also has no launch MSRP listed, while the R7 240 launched at 69 USD MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark shared between the two parts is Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M takes the win. The score is 5211 for the Quadro against 5063 for the R7 240, a delta of 2.9%. That is a narrow victory, but the underlying hardware explains why the older Fermi chip still edges out the newer GCN part.

The Quadro’s advantage comes from its memory subsystem and texture throughput. With 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s, the NVIDIA part moves data nearly three times faster. That directly benefits OpenCL workloads that stress memory access. The Quadro also has 56 TMUs to the R7 240’s 20, giving it a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s — a 70% advantage. The FP32 compute rating of 638.4 GFLOPS is also higher than the R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS.

The R7 240 fights back on efficiency and process technology. Its 28 nm node and 77 mm² die are far smaller than the 40 nm, 332 mm² Fermi chip, and its 30 W TDP is one-third of the Quadro’s 100 W. The R7 240 also has a higher transistor density (12.3M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm²), showing how process shrinks changed GPU design between 2011 and 2013. In raw compute, though, the R7 240 cannot close the gap: its pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s trails the Quadro’s 6.650 GPixel/s.

Looking at nearest rivals adds context. The Quadro 4000M scores within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 760M (5236) and 1.1% of the Quadro K3100M (5154), while sitting 1% above the Radeon R7 M260X (5161). The R7 240 is dead even with the Radeon R7 M340 (5063), 0.6% above the FirePro W4170M, and 1.3% above the Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). These figures confirm both GPUs are mid-pack performers in their respective eras, with the Quadro holding a slight edge in compute throughput. The wins tally from the head-to-head data is 1 for the Quadro and 0 for the R7 240, matching the OpenCL result.