AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear hierarchy between these two end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 holds a decisive advantage in every benchmark where both were measured. Its average benchmark score of 5982 places it well above the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, which averages 5161. The performance gap is substantial: the Quadro K4000 leads by 19.8% in Geekbench OpenCL and by a commanding 50.4% in Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD part sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro reaches the 34th percentile, a modest but consistent margin across the database.

The Quadro K4000 is the appropriate choice for users who need stronger compute throughput, particularly in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The R7 M260X, by contrast, is positioned firmly in the lower tier of the database. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, which scores 5154 (0.1% behind the AMD part), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063 (1.9% behind). The R7 M260X cannot match the Quadro K4000 in any recorded metric. The Quadro's nearest rivals, meanwhile, are the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987 (0.1% ahead), indicating the K4000 is squarely within a tightly packed cluster of similar-performance workstation parts. For anyone choosing strictly between these two, the data points exclusively toward the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, regardless of the intended application.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and are built for different market segments. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip based on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 2,540 million transistors on a die size of 221 mm², yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm, but with only 950 million transistors across a much smaller 77 mm² die, resulting in a higher density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

The execution resources differ significantly. The Quadro K4000 features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. The R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs, exactly half the shaders and a third of the ROP count. The Quadro's pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the AMD part, and its texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput stands at 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the Quadro against 549.1 GFLOPS for the R7 M260X, a 2.27x advantage in raw compute.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Quadro K4000 carries 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, less than half the Quadro's memory throughput. Clock behavior differs as well: the AMD part has explicit base and boost clocks of 620 MHz and 715 MHz, while the Quadro lists only a memory clock of 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) in the database. The AMD memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Power and physical characteristics also separate them. The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot card with an 80 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 250 W power supply. It measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The R7 M260X has no recorded TDP, no slot width, no dimensions, and uses no power connectors, which is consistent with a mobile-oriented part. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the R7 M260X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are also different: the Quadro provides one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the AMD part is described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating its mobile nature.

API support shows a minor divergence. Both support OpenGL 4.6, and both list Vulkan support, with the Quadro at version 1.2.175 and the R7 M260X at 1.2.170. DirectX support is listed as 12 (11_0) for the Quadro and 12 (11_1) for the AMD part. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 against 5690 for the R7 M260X, a delta of 19.8% in favor of NVIDIA. This margin is consistent with the raw compute differences: the Quadro has double the shading units and more than double the FP32 throughput, so a roughly one-fifth lead in a compute API benchmark is actually a narrower result than the hardware specifications might suggest, likely reflecting memory bandwidth and driver efficiency in the AMD part.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a much larger separation. The Quadro K4000 scores 6964, while the R7 M260X manages only 4631. That is a 50.4% advantage for the Quadro. This is the single biggest win in the comparison and indicates that the Kepler architecture, even as an older design, handles Vulkan workloads substantially better than the GCN 1.0 part. The gap in Vulkan is more than double the gap in OpenCL, which suggests the AMD GPU's Vulkan driver path or hardware scheduling is a significant weakness relative to its OpenCL performance.

Across the two recorded head-to-head tests, the Quadro K4000 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record. The R7 M260X has no recorded wins in any comparison with the Quadro. When placed against its own nearest rivals, the R7 M260X is essentially competitive with parts like the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (0.1% ahead of it) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (1.9% behind it), but those are all much lower-performing chips than the Quadro K4000. By contrast, the Quadro K4000 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server in the database's average score comparison, although this is a quirk of the averaging method rather than an indication of real-world equivalence.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5982, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X averages 5161.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Quadro K4000 scores 6964 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4631 for the R7 M260X, a 50.4% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260X win any benchmark against the Quadro K4000?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Quadro K4000 wins both.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth from 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus. The R7 M260X has 64.00 GB/s from 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Quadro K4000 contains 2,540 million transistors, while the R7 M260X contains 950 million.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins in every measured category. Its strengths are most pronounced in Vulkan, where it holds a 50.4% lead, and it also leads by 19.8% in OpenCL. The Quadro offers more than double the FP32 compute (1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS), more than double the texture fill rate (51.84 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), and more than double the pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s). It also has triple the ROP count (24 versus 8) and 2.7x the memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s). Its 3 GB frame buffer is three times larger than the R7 M260X's 1 GB, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and larger data sets.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X does not have a single recorded benchmark win over the Quadro K4000. Its only advantages in the database are indirect: it has a higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²), a newer release date (December 2015 versus February 2013), a newer PCIe generation (3.0 versus 2.0), and a slightly higher DirectX version listing (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)). It also uses no power connectors and has no recorded TDP, which reflects its intended mobile environment. None of these factors translate into a performance victory in the recorded data.

For users seeking the stronger compute platform, the Quadro K4000 is the only defensible choice based on these measurements. For users in a power-constrained mobile design, the R7 M260X may be the only physically viable option, but the performance cost is severe. There is no workload category in the database where the AMD part emerges ahead.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip with Kepler architecture, while the R7 M260X uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0. Both use a 28 nm TSMC process, but the Quadro has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the AMD part has 950 million on 77 mm². The Quadro's transistor density is 11.5M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm² for the R7 M260X.

Clock speeds differ in presentation: the Quadro lists no base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the AMD part lists a 620 MHz base, 715 MHz boost, and 1000 MHz memory (4 Gbps effective). Memory configurations are distinct: 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s for the Quadro versus 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s for the AMD part.

Compute resources differ substantially: 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs for the Quadro versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the R7 M260X. Pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Power and physical specs also differ: the Quadro has an 80 W TDP, is single-slot, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, and measures 241 mm by 111 mm. The R7 M260X has no recorded TDP, slot width, dimensions, or PSU suggestion, and uses no power connectors. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the AMD part.

API support shows minor differences: DirectX 12 (11_0) for the Quadro versus 12 (11_1) for the AMD part, OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.2.175 for the Quadro versus 1.2.170 for the R7 M260X. Release dates differ by nearly three years: the Quadro launched in February 2013, the R7 M260X in December 2015. The Quadro has a recorded launch MSRP of 1,269 USD; the AMD part has none recorded. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, while the R7 M260X's predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile.