AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6816, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. That is a 34.6% advantage for the Quadro K4000. This is not a small gap; it represents a substantial performance tier difference in compute workloads. For context, the Quadro K4000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5982, while the R7 240's average is 5063, meaning the NVIDIA card holds a roughly 18% lead in overall average score.

Looking at where the Quadro K4000 sits among its nearest rivals in the database, its average score of 5982 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996), within 0.1% of the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987), and within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986). It is also 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970). These are tight margins, indicating the K4000 is squarely in a well-populated performance band. The R7 240, by contrast, shows a different competitive picture: its average score of 5063 is exactly matched by the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063), is 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). The R7 240 leads its closest rivals, but those rivals are all lower-tier mobile or integrated parts, not workstation-class accelerators.

The single head-to-head result is decisive in raw compute: the K4000 wins with a 34.6% margin. However, the benchmark suite is limited. The K4000 has additional recorded scores in Geekbench Metal (4166) and Geekbench Vulkan (6964), while the R7 240 has no recorded scores in those APIs. That absence matters: the K4000's Vulkan score of 6964 is its highest recorded result, and its Metal score of 4166 is its lowest, showing API-dependent behavior. The R7 240 simply has no comparable data, so any claim about those workloads favoring one card over the other would go beyond the record.

Percentile placement reinforces the separation. The K4000 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile. That 4-percentile gap is modest, but it aligns with the average score difference. Neither card is a high-flyer by modern standards; both are near the lower-middle range of the overall distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000 wins in every recorded comparison that involves both cards. Its OpenCL score of 6816 versus 5063 is a 34.6% margin. It also has the advantage of additional API coverage: Metal and Vulkan scores exist for the K4000, which is useful for any application that leverages those interfaces. The R7 240 has no recorded Metal or Vulkan results, so the K4000 is the only one of the two with demonstrated capability in those areas.

The R7 240 does not win any recorded benchmark against the K4000. Its strengths are elsewhere: it has a much lower thermal design power (30 W versus 80 W), it requires no auxiliary power connectors, and it is physically smaller (168 mm length versus 241 mm). Those are not performance wins, but they are practical advantages in constrained builds. The R7 240 also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16; the newer interface generation could matter for bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the R7 240's narrower link partially offsets that benefit.

For use-case analysis, the data suggests the K4000 is the compute-oriented choice. Its higher FP32 throughput (1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS), higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s) all point to a card that can handle heavier rendering and general-purpose workloads. The R7 240, with its 30 W power draw and no power connector, fits scenarios where low power consumption and minimal physical footprint are the priorities. It is a card for basic display output and light compute, not for pushing large datasets.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip, built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the chip designs diverge sharply.

The K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The R7 240 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 12.3M per mm². The K4000's larger die and higher transistor count translate directly into more execution resources: 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, versus the R7 240's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 2.4x advantage in shading units, a 3.2x advantage in TMUs, and a 3x advantage in ROPs, all in the K4000's favor.

Memory subsystems also differ. The K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering only 28.80 GB/s. That is a 4.7x bandwidth advantage for the K4000, which is critical for memory-bound workloads. The K4000's memory clock is listed as 1404 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective, while the R7 240's memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The GDDR5 versus DDR3 distinction explains most of the bandwidth gap.

Clock behavior differs as well. The R7 240 has explicit base and boost clocks of 730 MHz and 780 MHz. The K4000's base and boost clocks are not listed in the database, so direct clock-speed comparison is not possible from the record. What is clear is that the K4000's higher throughput comes from a combination of more execution units and much faster memory, not necessarily from higher clocks.

Feature support is broadly similar. Both support DirectX 12, though the K4000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) while the R7 240 lists DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is close: the K4000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175, the R7 240 lists Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Display outputs differ: the K4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R7 240 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. Power requirements also differ significantly: the K4000 has an 80 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R7 240 has a 30 W TDP, no power connector, and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 as the clearly stronger performer. It wins the only shared benchmark by 34.6%, has a higher average benchmark score (5982 versus 5063), sits at a higher percentile (34th versus 30th), and offers dramatically more compute and memory resources. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy or rendering-heavy tasks should take the K4000 without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 is the choice only for very specific scenarios: low-power builds, systems without spare power connectors, or cases where physical space is tight. Its 30 W TDP, lack of a power connector, and 168 mm length make it easy to slot into small or older systems. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also newer than the K4000's PCIe 2.0 x16, which is a minor point in its favor for compatibility with modern motherboards. But those are practical advantages, not performance advantages. The R7 240 does not win a single recorded benchmark against the K4000, and its memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s is a severe bottleneck for any demanding workload.

The K4000 also benefits from broader API coverage in the database. Its Vulkan score of 6964 and Metal score of 4166 show it can handle those interfaces, while the R7 240 has no recorded results for either. For users targeting OpenCL specifically, the K4000's 34.6% lead is the headline number. For users targeting Metal or Vulkan, the K4000 is the only one of the two with proven results.

Neither card is modern by the database's standards. The K4000's 34th percentile and the R7 240's 30th percentile place both in the lower half of all GPUs. But within this pairing, the verdict is unambiguous: the Quadro K4000 is the superior card in every measured performance category, while the R7 240 is a low-power utility option.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 6816 versus 5063 for the AMD Radeon R7 240, a 34.6% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 240 win any benchmark against the Quadro K4000?

A: No. The database records one head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), and the K4000 wins it. The R7 240 has no recorded wins.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP, requires no power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The R7 240 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The K4000 was released on 2013-02-28 and the R7 240 on 2013-10-07.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Chip | GK106 | Oland |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1404 MHz, 5.6 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 24 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | 30 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,269 USD | 69 USD |