AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

This comparison is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it wins by an enormous margin. The AMD Radeon R7 240 does not record a single benchmark victory in the data. In the sole shared test — Geekbench OpenCL — the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the R7 240's 5,063, a 277.6% advantage. That is not a close race; it is a category difference.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Quadro M4000 is the workstation-class part, built for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads and professional 3D rendering. Its benchmark portfolio includes ten separate tests spanning DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, Vulkan, and compute, with a Passmark G3D score of 6,680 and a Passmark GPU compute score of 2,660. The R7 240, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark — Geekbench OpenCL — and its 5,063 score places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs.

For anyone needing raw compute throughput, the Quadro M4000 is the only rational choice. The R7 240's single benchmark result suggests it was designed for basic display output and light 2D work, not for sustained compute or modern gaming. The Quadro's 32nd percentile ranking versus the R7's 30th percentile further reinforces that even at the margins of the database, the Quadro sits higher.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and different design philosophies. The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm, but with just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die — a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ by a factor of roughly five. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That translates into a theoretical pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s and texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s for the Quadro, versus 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s for the R7. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the Quadro delivers 2.573 TFLOPS FP32, while the R7 manages 499.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is equally divergent. The Quadro M4000 carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth at 6 Gbps effective. The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth at 1800 Mbps effective. The Quadro's memory subsystem is over six times faster in raw bandwidth, which matters enormously for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The R7 240 does have one advantage: its 30 W TDP versus the Quadro's 120 W. It requires no power connectors and only a 200 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro needs a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU. The R7 is also physically smaller at 168 mm length versus 241 mm for the Quadro. But these are efficiency and footprint wins, not performance wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, and the R7 240 scores 5,063. That is a delta of 277.6% in favor of the Quadro. To put this in perspective, the Quadro's score is nearly four times the R7's score.

The Quadro's OpenCL result is not an outlier in its own portfolio. Its average benchmark score across all ten tests is 5,467, which is actually lower than its OpenCL score alone — indicating that the OpenCL workload is where this card excels. The R7's average benchmark score is 5,063, which is identical to its only benchmark result.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The Quadro M4000's closest competitors by average score are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, -0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444, +0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501, -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508, -0.7%). All of these are within 1% of the Quadro's average, meaning the Quadro sits in a tightly packed cluster of mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts when averaged across all tests.

The R7 240's nearest rivals tell a similar story but at a slightly lower level. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 matches it exactly at 5,063 (0% delta), the AMD FirePro W4170M is at 5,034 (+0.6%), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 is at 5,018 (+0.9%), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is at 4,998 (+1.3%). The R7 240 is essentially at parity with its nearest competition, whereas the Quadro's single-test dominance is buried by its weaker DirectX performance in other benchmarks.

The Passmark results for the Quadro reveal why its average is pulled down. It scores 113 in DirectX 9, 49 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 10, and 26 in DirectX 12. These are low numbers, suggesting the Quadro's driver optimization favors compute over legacy rasterization. Its Passmark G2D score of 673 and G3D score of 6,680 are more respectable, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 680 confirms modern API capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467 across ten tests, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 has an average of 5,063 from a single test. The Quadro is approximately 8% higher on average.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M4000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,063 for the R7 240, a 277.6% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark shared between the two cards.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 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 has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, compared to 320 for the R7 240. The Quadro also has 104 TMUs and 64 ROPs versus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the R7.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 6-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. The R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, no power connectors, and a 200 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each card?

A: The Quadro M4000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 average score (-0.3% delta). The R7 240's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5,063 (0% delta).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Base Clock | — | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | — | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 320 |

| TMUs | 104 | 20 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.573 TFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 30 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm | 168 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | — | 69 USD |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior GPU by every performance metric recorded. Its 277.6% OpenCL advantage over the R7 240 is the single largest gap in this comparison, and its memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s makes it categorically more capable for data-intensive workloads. The Quadro's 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 performance is more than five times the R7's 499.2 GFLOPS.

The R7 240's only advantages are efficiency and physical footprint. At 30 W TDP with no power connectors, it can run in systems where the Quadro's 120 W requirement would be prohibitive. Its 168 mm length makes it suitable for compact cases, and its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is sufficient for its bandwidth needs. But these are niche benefits for low-power or small-form-factor builds.

Who should pick the Quadro M4000? Anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, professional 3D applications, or needing 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 256-bit bandwidth. Its four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs support multi-display professional setups. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 API compatibility ensure modern software compatibility.

Who should pick the R7 240? Users with strict power limits, systems with only a 200 W PSU, or builds where the single-slot, 168 mm card must fit in a tight chassis. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 128-bit bus are adequate for basic display output and light 2D workloads. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support and Vulkan 1.2.170 are sufficient for older or undemanding software.

The percentile rankings reinforce the verdict: the Quadro sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, the R7 at the 30th. Both are below median, but the Quadro's broader benchmark portfolio and massive compute lead make it the clear choice for any performance-oriented use case. The R7 240 is a low-power display adapter; the Quadro M4000 is a professional compute card. They are not competing in the same class.