AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD Radeon R7 Graphics represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing: a dedicated professional workstation card versus an integrated graphics processor (IGP) embedded within an APU. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Quadro M4000 winning both head-to-head tests by massive margins, yet the Radeon R7 Graphics holds its own in the lower percentile rankings. This analysis will break down the architectural, specification, and benchmark differences between these two end-of-life products, providing clarity on which parts of the market they served. The data is clear: the Quadro M4000 is a compute and rendering powerhouse, while the Radeon R7 Graphics is a basic display solution for everyday tasks.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the unequivocal choice for any workload that demands raw graphics processing power. Its average benchmark score of 5467 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics trails with an average score of 4998, sitting in the 29th percentile. This places the Quadro M4000 in a different performance class entirely.

For users who need to run modern 3D applications, compute-heavy tasks, or any DirectX 12 (12_1) workload, the Quadro M4000 is the only viable option between the two. Its closest rivals—the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (avg score 5483, deltaPct -0.3) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (avg score 5508, deltaPct -0.7)—are within a single percentage point of its average score, confirming it sits in a competitive band for entry-level dedicated GPUs. In contrast, the Radeon R7 Graphics’ nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000, scores 4979 (deltaPct 0.4), showing it is essentially tied with a much older professional card.

The verdict for the Radeon R7 Graphics is that it is suited only for basic display output and legacy or non-demanding tasks. Its position in the 29th percentile, with rivals like the AMD FirePro W4170M (avg score 5034, deltaPct -0.7), shows it is at the very bottom of the performance spectrum. Its 25 W TDP and IGP form factor make it a low-power solution, but the benchmark data offers no scenario where it can compete with the Quadro M4000. Simply put, the Quadro M4000 is for professionals and enthusiasts; the Radeon R7 Graphics is for basic system functionality.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, explaining the performance chasm. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture (chip GM204), fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics uses the GCN 2.0 architecture (chip "Spectre Lite"), built by GlobalFoundries on the same 28 nm node, but with only 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 9.8M per mm².

This transistor budget difference translates directly into execution resources. The Quadro M4000 features 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon R7 Graphics has just 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Consequently, the pixel rate for the Quadro is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 5.760 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and the texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro, dwarfing the Radeon’s 553.0 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture also differs completely. The Quadro M4000 has a dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 Graphics uses "System Shared" memory, with bandwidth that is "System Dependent," meaning its performance relies entirely on the host system’s RAM. The Quadro’s APIs include DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and the older Vulkan 1.2.170. These architectural differences are the root cause of the benchmark results.

FAQ

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

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4,015. This results in a delta of 376.2%, meaning the Quadro is nearly four times faster in this compute test.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics competitive in any benchmark against the Quadro M4000?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—the Quadro M4000 wins both. The Radeon R7 Graphics has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Vulkan API?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M4000 scores 24,640, which is 312% higher than the Radeon R7 Graphics’ score of 5,980. This indicates a massive advantage for the NVIDIA card in modern graphics APIs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 5,200 million transistors, which is more than double the 2,410 million transistors found in the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics. This difference is a primary driver of the performance gap.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in their average benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon R7 Graphics has an average score of 4,998, placing it in the 29th percentile.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro M4000 features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 Graphics uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, offering no dedicated video memory.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the provided data.

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA vs. AMD
• Chip: GM204 vs. Spectre Lite
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 vs. GCN 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) vs. GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri)
• Foundry: TSMC vs. GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 5,200 million vs. 2,410 million
• Die Size: 398 mm² vs. 245 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.1M / mm² vs. 9.8M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs. System Shared
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs. System Shared
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs. System Shared
• Bus Width: 256 bit vs. System Shared
• Bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s vs. System Dependent
• Shading Units: 1664 vs. 384
• TMUs: 104 vs. 24
• ROPs: 64 vs. 8
• Pixel Rate: 49.47 GPixel/s vs. 5.760 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 80.39 GTexel/s vs. 17.28 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.573 TFLOPS vs. 553.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: 120 W vs. 25 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs. IGP
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin vs. None
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs. None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs. IGP
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 vs. Motherboard Dependent
• Vulkan API: 1.4 vs. 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2015-06-28 vs. 2014-02-16
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler vs. TeraScale 3 IGP
• Successor: Quadro Pascal vs. GCN 3.0 IGP
• Dimensions: 241 mm (9.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height vs. Not specified

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides a clear, quantitative picture of the performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins both available tests, with margins that are not incremental but generational.

The largest win for the Quadro M4000 comes in Geekbench OpenCL. Here, it scores 19,118 points against the Radeon R7 Graphics’ 4,015. This is a delta of 376.2%, meaning the Quadro M4000 delivers nearly five times the compute performance of the integrated Radeon. This test is a strong indicator of general-purpose GPU compute capability, a workload where the Quadro’s 1,664 shading units and 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 throughput completely overwhelm the Radeon’s 384 shading units and 553.0 GFLOPS.

The second head-to-head test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a similar story. The Quadro M4000 scores 24,640, while the Radeon R7 Graphics manages 5,980. The delta of 312% underscores the NVIDIA card’s superiority in modern, low-overhead graphics APIs. The Quadro’s support for Vulkan 1.4, compared to the Radeon’s older 1.2.170, further cements this advantage. The Radeon’s reliance on system memory for its frame buffer creates a severe bottleneck in this API, while the Quadro’s dedicated 192.3 GB/s GDDR5 bandwidth allows for much faster data movement.

The overall win count is 2-0 in favor of the Quadro M4000. The data shows no benchmark where the Radeon R7 Graphics can close the gap. Even in the Radeon’s best-case scenario—its average score of 4,998 being close to the Quadro’s 5,467—the delta is only about 9%. However, this average is misleading, as it is pulled up by its nearest rival scores (like the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB at 4,970, deltaPct 0.6), not by its own performance. In direct comparison, the Quadro M4000’s wins of 376.2% and 312% are the only definitive metrics, and they decisively favor the professional NVIDIA card.