GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are both end-of-life products that land at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, yet they represent completely different design philosophies. The R7 is a 25W integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into a Kaveri APU, while the Quadro 4000 is a 142W professional add-in card. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result where the Quadro 4000 wins, but the overall average scores are nearly identical, within 0.4% of each other. This makes the choice less about raw performance and more about which platform constraints and feature sets matter to you.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision based on system type and application needs. If you are building a compact, low-power system where a discrete GPU is not an option, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is the only choice that exists for that use case, it is an IGP with a 25W TDP, which means it draws a fraction of the power and requires no PCIe slot or power connectors. For users who need a dedicated workstation card with dedicated memory and a professional display output configuration, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the pick, as it offers 2GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth.

The Geekbench OpenCL score is decisive: the Quadro 4000 scores 4979 versus the R7’s 4015, a 19.4% deficit for the AMD part. However, the R7 counters in the Vulkan test with a score of 5980, which is a result the Quadro 4000 cannot match because it has no Vulkan support listed. For users running Vulkan workloads, the R7 is functionally superior; for OpenCL-heavy professional tasks, the Quadro 4000 leads. The average benchmark scores are nearly tied (4998 vs 4979, a 0.4% difference), so neither card has a meaningful overall performance advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and processes. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics uses the GCN 2.0 architecture on a 28nm process from GlobalFoundries, with the chip codenamed "Spectre Lite." This is an integrated design where the GPU shares system memory, and the entire APU die measures 245 mm² with 2,410 million transistors. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the older Fermi architecture on a 40nm process from TSMC, with the GF100 chip. The Quadro’s dedicated GPU die is much larger at 529 mm² and packs 3,100 million transistors, but the older process node results in a lower transistor density of 5.9M per mm² versus the R7’s 9.8M per mm².

The compute configurations differ significantly. The R7 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and only 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000 has fewer shading units at 256, but more TMUs (32) and four times the ROPs (32). This explains the differing throughput rates: the Quadro achieves a higher pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s versus the R7’s 5.760 GPixel/s, while the R7 edges out the Quadro in texture rate at 17.28 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance also favors the R7, which delivers 553.0 GFLOPS FP32 versus the Quadro’s 486.4 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The R7 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," meaning its performance scales with the host system’s RAM. The Quadro 4000 has dedicated 2GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a fixed 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the Quadro is listed at 702 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective. The R7 has no dedicated memory clock because it relies entirely on system RAM.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a decisive win for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000. The Quadro scores 4979 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4015, resulting in a delta of -19.4% for the AMD part. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload, indicating that the Quadro’s dedicated memory and higher ROP count provide a tangible advantage in OpenCL tasks. The R7’s higher FP32 throughput (553.0 vs 486.4 GFLOPS) did not translate into an OpenCL win, suggesting that memory bandwidth and memory latency play a larger role in this benchmark than raw compute throughput.

The R7 does have a Vulkan benchmark score of 5980, which is notably higher than its OpenCL score. However, the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan score listed in the data, and its API table shows "vulkan": null. This means the R7 is the only one of the two that supports Vulkan, and its score indicates strong performance in that API relative to its OpenCL showing. The average benchmark scores tell a different story: the R7’s average is 4998, which is actually slightly higher than the Quadro’s 4979, a 0.4% difference in favor of AMD. This is because the R7’s Vulkan score of 5980 pulls its average up, while the Quadro only has the single OpenCL result.

Specification Differences

The form factor and power requirements are the most obvious differences. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU rating; it uses the system’s existing power delivery. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card that is 241 mm long (9.5 inches), 111 mm high (4.4 inches), and 20 mm wide (0.8 inches), requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300W power supply. The TDP gap is enormous: 25W for the R7 versus 142W for the Quadro, making the R7 over five times more power-efficient in this metric.

Bus interface and display outputs also differ. The R7 uses an IGP bus interface, meaning it communicates over the system’s internal fabric, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs on the R7 are "Motherboard Dependent," as the IGP’s video outputs are determined by the motherboard design. The Quadro provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. API support shows the R7 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The release dates are far apart, with the R7 launching in 2014 and the Quadro in 2010, and the Quadro has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD. The R7’s predecessor is TeraScale 3 IGP, while the Quadro’s is Quadro FX Tesla; the R7’s successor is GCN 3.0 IGP, and the Quadro’s is Quadro Kepler.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4979, which is 19.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics’ score of 4015.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the R7 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and scores 5980 in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics has a 25W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a 142W TDP. The R7 consumes significantly less power because it is an integrated processor.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 2GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics uses system-shared memory, with its size, type, and bus width all listed as "System Shared."

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics has 384 shading units, which is more than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 256 shading units. However, the Quadro has more ROPs (32 versus 8).

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 have a production status of "End-of-life."

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in the OpenCL compute benchmark, the only direct head-to-head test, with a 19.4% lead. It also wins on memory configuration, offering dedicated 2GB GDDR5 with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, which is critical for professional applications that need predictable memory performance. Its higher pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s and quadruple the ROP count (32 versus 8) make it better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks. The Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) give it an edge in workstation setups that require multiple monitors or specific output types.

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins on power efficiency, with a 25W TDP versus the Quadro’s 142W, making it the only viable option for systems with no discrete GPU slot or limited cooling. It also wins on Vulkan support, scoring 5980 in that benchmark, a capability the Quadro lacks entirely. The R7’s higher texture rate of 17.28 GTexel/s and FP32 throughput of 553.0 GFLOPS suggest it has an advantage in texture-heavy and general compute workloads that do not rely on dedicated memory bandwidth. Its average benchmark score of 4998 is also nominally higher than the Quadro’s 4979, driven by the Vulkan result. For users on a tight power budget or building a small form factor system, the R7 is the clear choice; for professional OpenCL workloads with dedicated memory requirements, the Quadro 4000 is the winner.