AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisive in this comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 5211 against the AMD Radeon R7 M260's 3708. That represents a 40.5% advantage for the Quadro, a substantial margin that places the two firmly in different performance tiers for compute workloads.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 does have one recorded victory, but it is not a head-to-head result. It posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289, a test the Quadro 4000M did not run. This gives the AMD part a clear win in the Vulkan API category, though the absence of a corresponding Quadro result prevents a direct comparison. The data shows the AMD card is not without merit; it simply wins in a different API environment.

Looking at the broader database, the Quadro's 5211 OpenCL score places it at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon's average benchmark score of 4499 lands it at the 26th percentile. The Radeon's average is pulled down by its weaker OpenCL result, but its Vulkan score of 5289 suggests the gap narrows or reverses depending on the workload and API. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the Quadro is the clear choice. For those targeting Vulkan-based applications, the Radeon has its own specific strength.

In terms of closest rivals, the Quadro 4000M sits in a cluster with the GeForce GTX 760M (5236, a 0.5% gap), the Radeon R7 M260X (5161, a 1% gap), and the Quadro K3100M (5154, a 1.1% gap). This indicates the Quadro 4000M is competitive with a group of mid-range mobile parts from its era. The Radeon R7 M260, meanwhile, is flanked by the FirePro W4190M (4505, a 0.1% gap), Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, a 1.3% gap), and the Radeon RX 560 (4569, a 1.5% gap). The data indicates the Radeon's average performance is within 1.7% of these rivals, showing it holds its own in that lower tier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two mobile GPUs is significant, reflecting their different design philosophies and release eras. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture, specifically using the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors onto a 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is a professional-grade part from 2011, designed for workstation tasks and reliability.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip, manufactured on a more advanced 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,550 million transistors on a much smaller 125 mm² die, achieving a higher transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. This is a consumer-oriented part released in 2014, built for efficiency and mainstream use.

The core configurations differ markedly. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R7 M260 has more shading units at 384, but fewer TMUs at 24 and only 8 ROPs. This imbalance suggests the Quadro is built for sustained throughput across a wide pipeline, while the Radeon's design leans on its shader count for compute-style workloads.

Memory subsystems are another major divergence. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. This is a 5.6x difference in memory bandwidth, a factor that heavily influences real-world performance in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The Quadro's memory clock is 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the Radeon's is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Radeon's higher clock does not compensate for its narrower bus.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part. The Radeon has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost of 980 MHz, while the Quadro's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The Radeon also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the Quadro does not list FP16 support. API support differs as well: the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro only lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support. The bus interface also differs, with the Quadro using MXM-B (3.0) and the Radeon using PCIe 3.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a lopsided affair. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. The delta is 40.5% in favor of the Quadro. This is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant showing that underscores the Quadro's superiority in OpenCL compute tasks.

To put this in context, the Quadro's 5211 score is within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 760M's 5236 and 1.4% of the GeForce 940M's 5284. It is also ahead of the Radeon R7 M260X (5161) and the Quadro K3100M (5154). The Radeon R7 M260's 3708 OpenCL score is far below all of these, indicating it is not competitive in this specific test with the Quadro's nearest rivals.

The Radeon's Vulkan score of 5289, however, is its standout result. It is higher than the Quadro's OpenCL score, but again, no Quadro Vulkan result exists for comparison. The data shows the Radeon can perform well in a modern API, but its OpenCL deficit is severe. The average benchmark score for the Radeon is 4499, which reflects the combined OpenCL and Vulkan results, while the Quadro's average is simply its OpenCL score of 5211.

The wins tally is 1 for the Quadro and 0 for the Radeon in head-to-head tests. The Radeon's Vulkan score is a separate data point, not a direct competition result. From the recorded data, the Quadro is the stronger overall performer, with the Radeon's only claim to a win being its Vulkan capability, which the Quadro cannot match due to lack of support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. The Quadro leads by 40.5%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the Radeon records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289. The Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan result in the database, so this is the Radeon's sole recorded win.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Radeon R7 M260 has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The Radeon R7 M260 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M does not list Vulkan support in its API specifications.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores rank them?

A: The Quadro 4000M has an average score of 5211, placing it at the 30th percentile. The Radeon R7 M260 has an average of 4499, placing it at the 26th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M. Its 40.5% lead over the Radeon R7 M260 in the only direct comparison is decisive. The Quadro also offers far superior memory bandwidth at 80.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a critical factor for professional compute tasks that move large datasets. Its 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs provide a balanced pipeline that outpaces the Radeon's configuration in the recorded tests.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is not without its strengths. Its Vulkan score of 5289 shows it can handle modern API workloads effectively, and its higher clock speeds (940 MHz base, 980 MHz boost) and 384 shading units suggest it has raw compute potential. Its 28 nm process and smaller die (125 mm²) indicate better manufacturing efficiency. However, the DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus is a severe bottleneck that likely hampers real-world performance in bandwidth-intensive scenarios.

For users seeking a GPU for professional OpenCL applications, the Quadro 4000M is the superior choice based on the recorded data. For those whose applications leverage Vulkan, the Radeon R7 M260 offers a capability the Quadro lacks entirely. The Radeon's 26th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 30th percentile reinforces the Quadro's overall standing, but the Radeon's Vulkan support makes it a viable option in that specific niche.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | AMD Radeon R7 M260 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 940 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 980 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 384 |

| TMUs | 56 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| FP32 Performance | 638.4 GFLOPS | 752.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | Not recorded | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2014-06-10 |