AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 represent two very different generations of GPU design, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, but the Quadro 4000 brings substantial memory and interface advantages that paint a more nuanced picture for specific workloads. This analysis breaks down where each card excels based strictly on the benchmark and specification data provided.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins the sole head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 5690 against the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 4979. That is a 14.3% advantage for the AMD part. This suggests the R7 M260X holds a significant edge in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, likely due to its newer GCN 1.0 architecture and higher raw FP32 throughput. Its FP32 performance is rated at 549.1 GFLOPS, compared to the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS, which aligns directly with the benchmark outcome.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in several specification-based categories that matter for professional and memory-intensive use. It offers double the memory capacity, with 2 GB versus the AMD's 1024 MB, and a substantially wider 256-bit memory bus compared to the R7 M260X's 128-bit interface. This results in a higher memory bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s for the Quadro 4000, versus 64.00 GB/s for the AMD card. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited—such as large texture sets or high-resolution framebuffers—the Quadro's data indicates a clear advantage. The Quadro 4000 also has a wider PCIe interface, using PCIe 2.0 x16 compared to the R7 M260X's PCIe 3.0 x8, which could affect data transfer rates in certain scenarios.

The wins are split between compute throughput for AMD and memory subsystem capabilities for NVIDIA. The AMD card wins the only actual benchmark, but the NVIDIA card wins on paper in memory capacity, bandwidth, and bus width. The Geekbench Vulkan score for the AMD card is 4631, further confirming its compute strength, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan score listed. The Quadro 4000's pixel rate is higher at 7.600 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the AMD card, suggesting a potential win in fill-rate-bound scenarios, though this is not confirmed by a benchmark in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Opal" chip, and fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the Fermi architecture, with the GF100 chip, on a much older 40 nm process, also from TSMC. This process difference is stark: the AMD chip packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is massive by comparison, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, but its density is only 5.9 million per mm². The smaller, denser AMD chip is a product of its newer manufacturing node.

Core configurations also differ significantly. The AMD R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, despite having fewer shading units at 256, has more TMUs (32) and significantly more ROPs (32). This explains the Quadro's higher pixel rate, as more ROPs directly translate to faster pixel output. The texture rates are close, with the AMD card at 17.16 GTexel/s and the NVIDIA card at 15.20 GTexel/s, a modest 12.9% advantage for AMD that reflects its higher texture unit count combined with its clock speeds.

Clock speeds tell a story of power efficiency versus raw capability. The AMD card has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz, while the NVIDIA card's base and boost clocks are not listed. The AMD card's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), whereas the Quadro 4000's memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The AMD card is clearly designed for mobility, with no TDP listed and no power connectors required, indicating it draws power solely from the PCIe slot. The Quadro 4000 is a desktop card with a 142 W TDP, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W power supply. It is also a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, while the AMD card's dimensions are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its mobile orientation.

API support differs, with the AMD card supporting DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the AMD card more future-proof for modern API adoption, particularly for Vulkan-based applications. The release dates reinforce the generational gap, with the Quadro 4000 launching in November 2010 and the R7 M260X launching in December 2015. The AMD card's predecessor is listed as "Solar System" and its successor as "Polaris Mobile," while the Quadro 4000's lineage runs from "Quadro FX Tesla" to "Quadro Kepler."

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but conditional recommendation. For general compute performance, especially in OpenCL workloads, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the superior choice. Its 14.3% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, combined with higher FP32 throughput and support for Vulkan, makes it the more capable modern compute processor. Its average benchmark score of 5161 also places it slightly ahead, and it sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro 4000's 29th percentile.

However, for professional applications that require large memory pools and high bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 offers compelling advantages. Its 2 GB memory capacity is double that of the AMD card, and its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth is 40% higher. The wider 256-bit bus and the full x16 PCIe interface suggest it can handle data-heavy workloads more effectively, despite its lower raw compute. The Quadro 4000 also has a higher pixel rate, which could benefit certain rendering tasks.

The choice depends on the workload. If the task is compute-bound and leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the AMD R7 M260X wins outright. If the task is memory-bound or requires higher fill rates, the Quadro 4000's specifications indicate it would be the better option. The AMD card is also the more modern part, with a smaller, denser chip and lower power requirements, making it suitable for portable devices. The Quadro 4000 is a legacy desktop workstation card that demands a PSU and offers fixed display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. For a modern user prioritizing compute, choose AMD. For legacy professional use with heavy data sets, the Quadro 4000's memory architecture is its saving grace.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has an average score of 4979. This puts the AMD card at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 29th percentile for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How much faster is the AMD card in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 4979. This represents a 14.3% advantage for the AMD card, making it the clear winner in this compute test.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 have any memory advantages?

A: Yes, the Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the AMD card's 1024 MB. It also has a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, resulting in higher bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s compared to 64.00 GB/s for the AMD R7 M260X.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The AMD R7 M260X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process with 950 million transistors, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors. The AMD chip is 77 mm², while the NVIDIA chip is 529 mm².

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R7 M260X supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.170 listed. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed, though both cards support DirectX 12 (with different feature levels) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W, requires one 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested power supply of 300 W. The AMD R7 M260X, by contrast, lists no TDP and requires no power connectors, as it is designed for portable devices.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. The AMD card scored 5690, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scored 4979. The delta is 14.3%, which is a substantial margin in GPU benchmarking. This result is consistent with the raw compute specifications: the AMD card delivers 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro 4000 delivers 486.4 GFLOPS. The AMD card's advantage in shading units (384 versus 256) and its higher clock speeds contribute directly to this outcome.

Beyond the single benchmark, the specification sheet offers other head-to-head comparisons. The AMD card wins on texture rate, with 17.16 GTexel/s versus the Quadro 4000's 15.20 GTexel/s, a 12.9% advantage. The NVIDIA card wins on pixel rate, with 7.600 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, a 32.9% advantage. Memory bandwidth also favors NVIDIA, with 89.86 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, a 40.4% advantage. The AMD card's Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631 provides an additional data point for its compute capabilities, though no comparable score exists for the Quadro 4000.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their performance. The AMD R7 M260X is closely matched with the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, which has an average score of 5154, a mere 0.1% difference. It is also within 1% of the Quadro 4000M and 1.4% of the GeForce GTX 760M. The Quadro 4000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, with an average score of 4970, just 0.2% lower. This is a remarkable pairing, indicating that the old Fermi card still trades blows with a modern GPU in this specific metric. The data overall shows that while the AMD card wins the benchmark, the NVIDIA card's memory subsystem is its strongest asset, and the two cards are closer than their release dates might suggest.