AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by nearly five years of silicon evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, with the AMD part taking the sole head-to-head benchmark victory, but the NVIDIA part retains advantages in specific architectural features that matter for professional workloads. The benchmark results indicate that the R7 M260X delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5690, while the Quadro 4000M trails at 5211, a difference of 8.4 percent in favor of the AMD solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. The AMD part scores 5690, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211. This represents an 8.4 percent lead for the AMD GPU, a substantial margin in the context of mobile graphics where thermal and power constraints often narrow performance gaps.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Quadro 4000M’s 5211 average score places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, scores 5236, which is only 0.5 percent higher. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X, with its 5690 OpenCL result, sits in the same 30th percentile overall, but its average benchmark score of 5161 (which includes a Vulkan test) tells a more nuanced story.

The R7 M260X’s average score of 5161 is actually 1 percent lower than the Quadro 4000M’s 5211 average, despite the R7 winning the OpenCL test outright. This discrepancy highlights how different benchmark suites can produce divergent results. The R7 M260X also shows a 1.9 percent advantage over the AMD Radeon R7 240, which scores 5063, and a 0.1 percent edge over the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154. Conversely, the Quadro 4000M is 1.4 percent slower than the GeForce 940M (5284) and 1.1 percent faster than the Quadro K3100M.

The Geekbench Vulkan result for the R7 M260X is 4631, a score that has no direct counterpart in the Quadro 4000M’s data, which lacks any Vulkan benchmark entry. This absence is itself informative, pointing to a fundamental API capability difference between the two architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins the compute race decisively. Its OpenCL score of 5690 versus 5211 for the Quadro 4000M means the AMD part is 8.4 percent faster in this general-purpose compute workload. This advantage likely stems from its more modern GCN 1.0 architecture and higher shading unit count of 384, compared to the Quadro’s 336.

The AMD part also wins on API versatility. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 4000M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. This means the R7 M260X can run a wider range of modern applications and games that leverage these newer APIs, whereas the Quadro 4000M is limited to older rendering paths.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in memory bandwidth and raw throughput metrics. It has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s for the AMD part, a 25 percent advantage. Its pixel rate is 6.650 GPixel/s compared to 5.720 GPixel/s for the R7 M260X, and its texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s dwarfs the AMD’s 17.16 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the Quadro 4000M is faster at fill-rate-bound tasks like high-resolution texture mapping and multi-sampled anti-aliasing, even though it loses in raw compute.

For professional applications that rely on OpenGL 4.6, both GPUs are on equal footing, but the Quadro’s higher texture and pixel throughput could give it an edge in CAD or 3D modeling workloads that are fill-rate limited rather than compute limited.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip built on Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². This is a large, power-hungry chip designed for professional mobile workstations, with a TDP of 100 W.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a much more advanced 28 nm process. It contains only 950 million transistors on a tiny 77 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm² — more than double that of the NVIDIA chip. This density advantage reflects the newer manufacturing process and explains how AMD achieves competitive performance with far fewer transistors.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Quadro 4000M has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz, with memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The AMD’s higher effective memory speed compensates for its narrower 128-bit bus, while the Quadro uses a wider 256-bit bus to achieve superior bandwidth.

The memory configurations differ significantly. The Quadro 4000M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the R7 M260X provides only 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus. This means the NVIDIA part can hold larger textures and datasets, which is critical for professional visualization and large scene rendering.

Shading resources are split differently. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 M260X has more shading units at 384, but only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This configuration makes the AMD part compute-heavy but fill-rate-light, while the NVIDIA part is more balanced toward traditional rasterization workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is 8.4 percent faster, scoring 5690 versus 5211 for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, it has higher memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s), higher pixel rate (6.650 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (26.60 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s).

Q: Which GPU supports more modern APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M only lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The AMD R7 M260X has a transistor density of 12.3M per mm², while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 5.9M per mm², reflecting the newer 28 nm process versus 40 nm.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X has 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has 384 shading units, compared to 336 for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | AMD Radeon R7 M260X |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 715 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 384 |

| TMUs | 56 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 638.4 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | Not listed |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2015-12-05 |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the superior compute performer, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.4 percent and offering modern API support that the NVIDIA part lacks entirely. Its 384 shading units and higher transistor density on a 28 nm process give it a structural advantage in shader-heavy workloads like OpenCL compute and modern game engines that leverage Vulkan or DirectX 12 (11_1).

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, despite being older and built on a larger 40 nm process, retains meaningful strengths. Its 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, 6.650 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate are all significantly higher than the AMD part’s figures. For applications that are fill-rate bound — such as high-resolution texture streaming, multi-sampled anti-aliasing, or traditional OpenGL rasterization — the Quadro 4000M would likely hold its own or outperform the R7 M260X, even if its raw compute score is lower.

The 2 GB memory capacity on a 256-bit bus is another practical advantage for the Quadro, especially in professional scenarios where large frame buffers are necessary. The R7 M260X’s 1024 MB capacity could become a bottleneck in texture-heavy scenes or when running multiple displays.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload. For compute-intensive tasks like machine learning inference, physics simulation, or any OpenCL-accelerated application, the R7 M260X is the clear winner. For traditional 3D rendering, CAD, or any task that stresses memory bandwidth and fill rate, the Quadro 4000M’s specifications suggest it remains competitive despite its age. The fact that both GPUs sit in the 30th percentile of all GPUs indicates that neither is a high-end part by modern standards, but each has carved out a distinct niche where its particular strengths can shine.