AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. That is a 34.3% advantage for the Quadro 4000. In practical terms, this means the older professional card delivers dramatically higher raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, which is the primary metric recorded for both parts.

The Quadro 4000’s score places it in the 29th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB scores 4970 (just 0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5018 (0.8% higher). The Quadro essentially trades blows with these parts, sitting squarely in a mid-pack performance tier despite its age.

The Radeon R7 M260, by contrast, sits in the 26th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 (0.1% lower), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (1.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (1.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (1.7% higher). The R7 M260 is the weakest of that group, trailing all but one of its listed competitors in average score.

When comparing the two directly, the Quadro 4000 is not just ahead; it is ahead by a wide margin that no other benchmark in the database contradicts. The R7 M260 does have a separate Vulkan score of 5289, but the Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan result, so no head-to-head comparison is possible there. For OpenCL, the only shared test, the verdict is unambiguous: the Quadro 4000 wins the single matchup, and the R7 M260 has zero wins in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. Fermi was a compute-focused architecture, and the Quadro 4000’s specifications reflect that: 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its peak FP32 throughput is 486.4 GFLOPS, with a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.20 GTexel/s.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip, based on the GCN 3.0 architecture, also built at TSMC but on a newer 28 nm process. It contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving it a much higher transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput is higher at 752.6 GFLOPS, and it also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which the Quadro does not list. Pixel rate is nearly identical at 7.840 GPixel/s, but the texture rate is higher at 23.52 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260 also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is a massive gap in memory throughput, and it explains why the Quadro dominates in compute-heavy OpenCL tasks. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the Quadro’s memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the R7 M260’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the narrow bus cripples the latter.

The R7 M260 has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, while the Quadro 4000 lists no base or boost clock in the database. The R7 M260 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro 4000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M260 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 4000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is faster by a significant margin. It scores 4979 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708, a 34.3% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks recorded in the database, the Quadro 4000 wins the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL). The R7 M260 has a Vulkan score of 5289, but the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan result, so no comparison is possible.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000. It uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 89.86 GB/s, while the R7 M260 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw shader throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260. It has 384 shading units and 752.6 GFLOPS FP32, compared to 256 shading units and 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000. However, the Quadro’s superior memory bandwidth gives it the overall compute advantage in the recorded benchmark.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The Quadro 4000 is on a 40 nm process with a 529 mm² die and 3,100 million transistors. The R7 M260 is on a 28 nm process with a 125 mm² die and 1,550 million transistors. The R7 M260 has higher transistor density at 12.4M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: Quadro 4000 is 40 nm; R7 M260 is 28 nm.
• Transistors: Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million; R7 M260 has 1,550 million.
• Die Size: Quadro 4000 is 529 mm²; R7 M260 is 125 mm².
• Transistor Density: Quadro 4000 is 5.9M / mm²; R7 M260 is 12.4M / mm².
• Base Clock: Quadro 4000 has none listed; R7 M260 is 940 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Quadro 4000 has none listed; R7 M260 is 980 MHz.
• Memory Clock: Quadro 4000 is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective); R7 M260 is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).
• Memory Type: Quadro 4000 is GDDR5; R7 M260 is DDR3.
• Memory Bus Width: Quadro 4000 is 256 bit; R7 M260 is 64 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Quadro 4000 is 89.86 GB/s; R7 M260 is 14.40 GB/s.
• Shading Units: Quadro 4000 has 256; R7 M260 has 384.
• TMUs: Quadro 4000 has 32; R7 M260 has 24.
• ROPs: Quadro 4000 has 32; R7 M260 has 8.
• Pixel Rate: Quadro 4000 is 7.600 GPixel/s; R7 M260 is 7.840 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Quadro 4000 is 15.20 GTexel/s; R7 M260 is 23.52 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Quadro 4000 is 486.4 GFLOPS; R7 M260 is 752.6 GFLOPS.
• FP16: Quadro 4000 has none listed; R7 M260 is 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: Quadro 4000 is 142 W; R7 M260 has none listed.
• Slot Width: Quadro 4000 is single-slot; R7 M260 has none listed.
• Power Connectors: Quadro 4000 is 1x 6-pin; R7 M260 has none listed.
• Suggested PSU: Quadro 4000 is 300 W; R7 M260 has none listed.
• Bus Interface: Quadro 4000 is PCIe 2.0 x16; R7 M260 is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display Outputs: Quadro 4000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort; R7 M260 has none listed.
• DirectX: Quadro 4000 is 12 (11_0); R7 M260 is 12 (12_0).
• Vulkan: Quadro 4000 has none listed; R7 M260 is 1.2.170.
• Dimensions: Quadro 4000 is 241 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm; R7 M260 has none listed.
• Release Date: Quadro 4000 is November 2010; R7 M260 is June 2014.
• Launch MSRP: Quadro 4000 is 1,199 USD; R7 M260 has none listed.
• Benchmark Scores: Quadro 4000 has 4979 OpenCL; R7 M260 has 3708 OpenCL and 5289 Vulkan.

The Verdict

The data is clear: for any workload measured by the shared benchmark, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the stronger GPU. Its 34.3% lead in OpenCL performance is substantial, and its memory subsystem is in a different class entirely. The 256-bit GDDR5 configuration with 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth dwarfs the R7 M260’s 64-bit DDR3 at 14.40 GB/s. If your application relies on memory throughput, the Quadro 4000 is the only rational choice.

However, the R7 M260 is not without merits. It has more shading units (384 vs. 256), higher FP32 throughput (752.6 GFLOPS vs. 486.4 GFLOPS), and superior texture rate (23.52 GTexel/s vs. 15.20 GTexel/s). It also supports newer APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro 4000 lacks. For modern games or applications that leverage Vulkan, the R7 M260 may be the better fit despite its OpenCL deficit.

The Quadro 4000 also demands more from the system: a 142 W TDP, a 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a full-length 241 mm single-slot card. The R7 M260 has no listed power or size constraints, making it far easier to integrate into compact or power-sensitive systems.

Pick the Quadro 4000 if you need raw OpenCL compute, high memory bandwidth, or professional-grade display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort). Pick the R7 M260 if you require Vulkan support, higher shader throughput, or a lower-power, smaller-footprint solution. For pure benchmark performance in the recorded data, the Quadro 4000 wins outright.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in:

• OpenCL compute performance: 4979 vs. 3708, a 34.3% lead.
• Memory bandwidth: 89.86 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s, a decisive advantage for large data sets.
• ROP throughput: 32 ROPs vs. 8, beneficial for fill-rate-bound tasks.
• Display connectivity: includes 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the R7 M260 lists none.
• Overall benchmark percentile: 29th vs. 26th among all GPUs.

AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins in:

• Shader throughput: 384 shading units and 752.6 GFLOPS FP32 vs. 256 units and 486.4 GFLOPS.
• Texture rate: 23.52 GTexel/s vs. 15.20 GTexel/s.
• API support: DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, both absent on the Quadro 4000.
• Process efficiency: 28 nm node with 12.4M transistors per mm², versus 40 nm at 5.9M per mm².
• Power and size flexibility: no listed TDP, power connectors, or dimensions, indicating a much lighter footprint.

The R7 M260 also has a Vulkan score of 5289, which suggests it can handle modern graphics workloads, but without a corresponding Quadro 4000 Vulkan result, no direct comparison is possible. The recorded data favors the Quadro 4000 in the only head-to-head test, but the R7 M260’s feature set makes it more versatile for contemporary software.