AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one benchmark result that directly compares these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. The Quadro K4000M wins by 18.2%, a substantial margin that places it clearly ahead in raw compute throughput.

Contextualizing the Quadro K4000M's score, it sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 5987, a negligible 0% difference. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (desktop version) is nearly identical at 5982, just 0.1% behind. Even the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and GeForce GTX 770M are within 0.2% of this score, at 5996 and 6000 respectively. This clustering suggests the Quadro K4000M's OpenCL performance is tightly grouped with a range of mid-tier workstation and mobile parts, making its 18.2% lead over the R7 240 all the more decisive.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, by contrast, sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its score of 5063 ties exactly with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063 (0% delta). The AMD FirePro W4170M is 0.6% behind at 5034, and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 trails by 0.9% at 5018. The R7 240's closest rival, the Radeon R7 Graphics, is 1.3% lower at 4998. In this grouping, the R7 240 is near the top of its immediate class, but that class is fundamentally lower than the Quadro K4000M's league.

The data shows that in the single measured workload, the Quadro K4000M delivers roughly 923 more points of OpenCL performance. This is not a marginal edge; it represents a full tier of separation between a mobile workstation GPU and an entry-level desktop discrete card. The gap is consistent with the differences in shading units, memory bandwidth, and compute rates detailed in later sections.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. The Quadro leads by 18.2%.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K4000M's average score of 5986 is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.1% ahead). The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and GeForce GTX 770M are marginally faster at 5996 and 6000, putting the Quadro 0.2% behind both.

Q: Where does the Radeon R7 240 sit among its peers?

A: The R7 240's score of 5063 is exactly matched by the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (0% delta). It is 0.6% ahead of the FirePro W4170M, 0.9% ahead of the Radeon R5 M430, and 1.3% ahead of the Radeon R7 Graphics.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4000M ranks at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 240 ranks at the 30th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K4000M achieves 12.02 GPixel/s, nearly double the R7 240's 6.240 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for both cards?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the R7 240 offers 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit DDR3 bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK104), produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation and uses 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per mm².

The AMD Radeon R7 240 is based on GCN 1.0 (chip Oland), also fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with a much smaller implementation: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Its transistor density is slightly higher at 12.3 million per mm², indicating a more compact design despite the older architecture generation. The R7 240 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) family, with its predecessor listed as Sea Islands and successor as Pirate Islands.

Feature sets diverge as well. The Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The API levels are close, but the R7 240 nominally supports a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), while the Quadro has a slightly newer Vulkan version.

Compute resources differ sharply. The Quadro K4000M packs 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Consequently, the Quadro's texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s for the R7 240, and its FP32 throughput is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. Neither GPU includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The memory subsystems reflect different design priorities. The Quadro K4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), producing 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro's bandwidth advantage is roughly 3.1x, which strongly favors memory-bound workloads.

Specification Differences

The key specification gaps between the two cards are substantial and systematic.

The Quadro K4000M's base clock is 601 MHz with no boost above that figure. The R7 240 starts at 730 MHz base and boosts to 780 MHz, giving it a higher clock speed on paper. However, the Quadro's far larger execution resource pool overcomes the clock disadvantage.

Memory capacity favors the Quadro: 4 GB versus 2 GB. Memory type and bus width also favor it: GDDR5 on 256 bits versus DDR3 on 128 bits. Bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

The Quadro has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 240 has 320, 20, and 8 respectively. Pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs also differ. The Quadro K4000M has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, and requires no power connectors. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP, is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. The R7 240 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8 and offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs. The Quadro's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile workstation origins with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

Release timing differs by roughly 17 months: the Quadro K4000M launched on 2012-05-31, while the R7 240 arrived on 2013-10-07. Both are now end-of-life. The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD; the Quadro K4000M has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the faster GPU in OpenCL compute by 18.2%. Its score of 5986 places it at the 34th percentile, while the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile. For any workload measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K4000M is the clear choice on raw performance alone.

Users should choose the Quadro K4000M if they need maximum compute throughput, higher memory bandwidth, 4 GB of VRAM, or the MXM-M mobile workstation compatibility. The data shows it is competitive with the FirePro W4100, Quadro K4000 desktop part, and even the far newer RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, all within 0.2% in either direction. The Quadro's 3x bandwidth advantage and 2.3x FP32 compute rate over the R7 240 suggest it will handle memory-intensive tasks without bottlenecking.

The R7 240, meanwhile, is suited to users prioritizing lower power draw at 30 W versus 100 W, a smaller 77 mm² die, or a desktop PCIe slot form factor with discrete display outputs. Its score ties the R7 M340 and leads the FirePro W4170M, R5 M430, and Radeon R7 Graphics by less than 1.5%. For entry-level desktop tasks within that performance bracket, the R7 240 is a reasonable match for its peers. But against the Quadro K4000M, the data shows no contest: the Quadro leads by nearly a fifth in measured performance, and the underlying specification gap in memory, shading units, and fill rates reinforces that outcome.