AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and AMD Radeon R7 250 are both end-of-life graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, driven by fundamental differences in chip design, memory configuration, and intended use case. The Quadro K4100M, a mobile workstation part, holds a decisive advantage in compute performance, while the Radeon R7 250, a desktop entry-level card, offers a lower thermal footprint and a different set of display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557. This translates to a 21.1% advantage for the Quadro K4100M, a substantial margin that underscores the compute-oriented nature of the professional card. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive gap that places the two cards in different performance strata for general-purpose GPU compute workloads.

Contextualizing the Quadro K4100M’s score against its nearest rivals reinforces its position. Its average benchmark score of 7906 places it within a narrow band of competitors. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M by 1.7% and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 by 1.7%, while sitting just 0.2% behind the GeForce GTX 460. This clustering suggests that the K4100M is a well-balanced performer for its generation, holding its own against both older desktop parts and newer mobile options in aggregate scoring.

The Radeon R7 250’s average score of 7557 places it in a similar percentile (41st for both cards), but its rival set tells a different story. It edges out the Intel Arc A310 by a mere 0.1% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.1%, while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by 0.3%. The margins here are razor-thin, indicating that the R7 250 is competitive within its own low-power class, but the absolute numbers are clearly lower than the K4100M’s output. The 21.1% delta in the head-to-head test is the definitive metric, showing that despite similar percentile rankings, the K4100M is significantly faster in raw compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro K4100M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, which is a large, high-end design. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². This is a massive chip designed for maximum throughput in professional applications. In contrast, the Radeon R7 250 employs AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Cape Verde chip. This is a much smaller and more power-efficient design, with only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving it a slightly higher density of 12.2M per mm². The difference in scale is stark: the GK104 has over double the transistor count and die area of Cape Verde.

This architectural gulf translates directly into the execution resources. The Quadro K4100M features 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon R7 250 is configured with just 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K4100M has more than double the shading units and triple the TMUs, which explains its commanding lead in both pixel and texture processing rates. The K4100M achieves 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s, while the R7 250 manages 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is smaller due to the R7 250’s higher clock speeds, but the texture rate advantage for the K4100M is overwhelming.

Memory is another major differentiator. The Quadro K4100M is equipped with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 250 comes with only 1024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, resulting in a significantly lower 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 3.5x difference in memory bandwidth, a critical factor for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The memory clock speeds also differ, with the K4100M running at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) and the R7 250 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the wider bus of the K4100M is what truly matters for bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data, combined with the architectural breakdown, points to clear strengths for each card. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins decisively in compute-heavy tasks. The 21.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, along with its 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS, makes it the obvious choice for applications that rely on general-purpose GPU computing, such as rendering, simulation, and scientific analysis.

The Radeon R7 250, while losing on raw performance, has its own advantages. Its TDP is only 55 W, compared to the K4100M’s 100 W, making it far more power-efficient. It is a single-slot desktop card with a 168 mm length and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of only 250 W. This makes it suitable for low-power or compact desktop builds where thermal output and space are primary concerns. Its display outputs are also fixed and concrete: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The K4100M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile workstation nature, meaning it relies on the laptop’s chassis for connectivity.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7906, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K4100M in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K4100M scores 9149 compared to the R7 250’s 7557, giving it a 21.1% performance advantage.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a lower thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, which is lower than the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M’s 100 W TDP.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro K4100M?

A: The launch MSRP of the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is 1,499 USD. The Radeon R7 250 does not have a launch MSRP listed.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GK104 (NVIDIA) vs Cape Verde (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler vs GCN 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) vs Volcanic Islands (R7 200)
• Transistors: 3,540 million vs 1,500 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 1024 MB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Shading Units: 1152 vs 512
• TMUs: 96 vs 32
• ROPs: 32 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 16.94 GPixel/s vs 14.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 67.78 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 1.627 TFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 100 W vs 55 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: None vs 250 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 168 mm (6.6 inches) length
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 vs 1.2.170
• Launch MSRP: 1,499 USD vs Not listed

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards is clear-cut based on the data. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the superior performer in every compute metric measured. Its 21.1% lead in OpenCL, combined with 3.5x the memory bandwidth and over 1.7x the FP32 throughput, makes it the only option for professional workloads where GPU compute power is paramount. Its 4 GB frame buffer also provides a significant advantage for large datasets or high-resolution displays. The data indicates that users needing maximum performance for rendering, simulation, or other compute-intensive tasks should select the Quadro K4100M.

The AMD Radeon R7 250, however, is not without merit. Its 55 W TDP is nearly half that of the K4100M, and its single-slot, 168 mm design with no power connectors makes it a drop-in solution for basic desktop systems. It is a capable card for light graphics duties and general desktop use. For a user building a low-power, compact system with modest graphical needs, the R7 250 is the more sensible choice. It offers a concrete set of display outputs and a lower thermal footprint, prioritizing efficiency over raw speed. The verdict, therefore, depends entirely on the application: raw compute power dictates the Quadro, while minimal power consumption and physical footprint dictate the Radeon.