AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and AMD Radeon R7 350 are two end-of-life graphics cards from different eras and market segments, yet benchmark data places them surprisingly close in overall compute performance. The Quadro K4100M, a 2013 flagship mobile workstation part, edges out the 2016 desktop R7 350 in the only shared benchmark, but the R7 350 counters with a much lower power draw and a more practical desktop form factor. This comparison is not about a clear winner, but about which set of trade-offs fits a specific use case.

The Verdict

The data points to a narrow overall victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M. Its average benchmark score of 7906 sits above the R7 350's 7425, and it wins the sole head-to-head OpenCL test with a 17.4% margin (9149 vs 7792). The Quadro also ranks in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, one point higher than the R7 350's 40th percentile. If raw compute throughput is the sole criterion, the Quadro is the pick.

However, the R7 350 is not without its own appeal. Its 55W TDP is less than two-thirds of the Quadro's 100W, making it a far easier card to cool and power in a desktop system. It also offers a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and a single-slot, 168mm form factor, whereas the Quadro comes as an MXM module with "Portable Device Dependent" outputs. For a builder looking to drop a card into a standard desktop motherboard without worrying about power connectors (neither card requires them), the R7 350 is the more practical choice despite its lower performance.

The verdict is clear: choose the Quadro K4100M for maximum compute performance in a compatible mobile or proprietary chassis, and choose the Radeon R7 350 for a low-power, drop-in desktop solution where the performance deficit is acceptable.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The Quadro K4100M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28nm process at TSMC. This is a large, complex die: 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² slice of silicon, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The R7 350, in contrast, uses AMD's older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip. It is also on TSMC's 28nm node, but it is a much smaller chip, packing 1,500 million transistors into just 123 mm², for a slightly higher density of 12.2M per mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro fields 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The R7 350 is cut down significantly, with only 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This explains the large gap in theoretical throughput: the Quadro's FP32 rate is 1.627 TFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part, and its texture rate of 67.78 GTexel/s is more than double the R7 350's 25.60 GTexel/s.

Memory architectures also diverge. The Quadro offers 4GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 350 has 2GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a peak bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. API support is similar but not identical: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro's Vulkan version is 1.2.175 versus the R7 350's 1.2.170, and the DirectX feature level is 11_0 on the NVIDIA part versus 11_1 on the AMD one.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the Quadro K4100M wins in raw compute. It holds a 17.4% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is a strong indicator of general-purpose GPU compute workloads. Its higher transistor count, more shaders, and wider memory bus suggest it will handle larger datasets and more complex shaders with greater ease. The Quadro's 4GB frame buffer is also double the R7 350's 2GB, which matters for texture-heavy workloads or large compute buffers.

The Radeon R7 350 wins in efficiency and practicality. Its 55W TDP is a full 45W lower than the Quadro, which means less heat to dissipate and a smaller power supply requirement (the R7 350 lists a suggested 250W PSU, while the Quadro lists none). It also has a standard desktop form factor with dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a plug-and-play option for a standard PC. The Quadro's MXM-B 3.0 interface and "Portable Device Dependent" outputs restrict it to specific laptops or proprietary carrier boards.

There is no benchmark data for the R7 350 in Vulkan or for the Quadro in Vulkan or Metal that is shared, so the R7 350's Vulkan score of 7057 stands alone. The Quadro's Metal score of 6662 is also unopposed. Neither card shows a clear win in those untested areas.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7906, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350's 7425. The Quadro's score is 17.4% higher than the R7 350's in their shared OpenCL test.

Q: Is the AMD card more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The Radeon R7 350 has a TDP of 55W, while the Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100W. This makes the R7 350 significantly easier to cool and power.

Q: Can the Radeon R7 350 be used in a standard desktop motherboard?

A: Yes. The R7 350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and has a single-slot, 168mm length. It also includes three physical display outputs. The Quadro K4100M, by contrast, uses an MXM-B 3.0 interface.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus, while the R7 350 offers 72.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the DirectX feature levels of these cards?

A: The Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, though with slightly different Vulkan versions.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a pixel rate of 16.94 GPixel/s, which is higher than the R7 350's 12.80 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the Quadro. The NVIDIA card scores 9149, while the AMD card scores 7792. That is a 17.4% delta in favor of the Quadro. This result is consistent with the underlying hardware: the Quadro has more than double the shading units (1152 vs 512), more than double the TMUs (96 vs 32), and a significantly higher FP32 throughput (1.627 TFLOPS vs 819.2 GFLOPS).

The R7 350 does have a Vulkan score of 7057, and the Quadro has a Metal score of 6662, but these are separate tests with no direct comparison available. The average scores reflect the overall picture: the Quadro's average of 7906 places it just 0.2% behind the GeForce GTX 460, while the R7 350's average of 7425 is 0.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 750. This means the Quadro operates in the performance tier of desktop cards like the GTX 460 and GTX 650 Ti, while the R7 350 sits closer to integrated graphics and lower-tier mobile parts.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two cards differ.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | AMD Radeon R7 350 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GK104 | Cape Verde |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 3.2 Gbps effective | 4.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1152 | 512 |

| TMUs | 96 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.94 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 67.78 GTexel/s | 25.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.627 TFLOPS | 819.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions (Length) | Not specified | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2016-07-05 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Volcanic Islands |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Arctic Islands |

| Launch MSRP | 1,499 USD | Not specified |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 9149 | 7792 |

| Geekbench Metal | 6662 | Not specified |

| Geekbench Vulkan | Not specified | 7057 |

| Percentile | 41 | 40 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 7906 | 7425 |