AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a clear, though modest, advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. The Quadro scores 5,986 points against 5,690 points for the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, a delta of 5.2%. This is not a landslide by any means, but it is a consistent win across the single available test. For context, the Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile. That raw percentile gap aligns with the benchmark delta: the NVIDIA part is slightly better positioned in the overall distribution.

The AMD card does have a second benchmark result in the database, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4,631. The Quadro has no Vulkan entry, so there is no direct head-to-head comparison there. However, the average benchmark score for the Radeon is 5,161, which pulls its overall standing down relative to its OpenCL result. The Quadro's average score is 5,986, identical to its OpenCL score because that is its only recorded test. This means the NVIDIA part has a more consistent profile in the database, while the AMD part shows higher OpenCL performance but lower Vulkan performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, both cards land in a tightly packed cluster. The Quadro K4000M is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 5,987 (a 0% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, which scores 5,982 (a 0.1% delta in favor of the K4000M). It also trades blows with much newer hardware: the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5,996 (a 0.2% delta against the Quadro) and the GeForce GTX 770M scores 6,000 (also a 0.2% delta against the Quadro). This suggests the K4000M's OpenCL result is right at the edge of a broader performance plateau; the differences among these four rivals are within noise.

The Radeon R7 M260X's nearest rivals are similarly close. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 5,154, just 0.1% behind the Radeon's average of 5,161. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211, which is 1% ahead of the Radeon. The GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,236, 1.4% ahead. The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063, 1.9% behind. So the R7 M260X sits in the middle of a group of older mobile and low-end desktop parts, all within about 2% of each other. The database records no benchmark wins for the Radeon in the head-to-head against the Quadro; the NVIDIA card wins the only test.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the faster GPU in OpenCL workloads by a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. If your priority is raw compute throughput in the database's only common test, the Quadro is the pick. Its 5.2% lead over the Radeon R7 M260X is real, and its 34th percentile standing versus the Radeon's 30th percentile reinforces that edge. The Quadro also benefits from a much larger frame buffer (4 GB versus 1 GB), which is relevant for memory-heavy workloads even though the benchmark scores do not directly capture that.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X is not without merit. It offers a Vulkan score of 4,631, which the Quadro cannot match because no Vulkan result is recorded for it. If you are targeting workloads that rely on Vulkan compute or graphics, the Radeon has a measurable capability that the NVIDIA part does not appear to have in this database. However, in the only directly comparable metric, it loses.

For a builder deciding between these two end-of-life mobile parts, the data points to the Quadro K4000M for general OpenCL acceleration. The Radeon is the choice only if you specifically need Vulkan support or if the lower power draw (the Quadro carries a 100 W TDP while the Radeon has no recorded TDP) matters less than the API coverage. The Quadro's 80 texture units and 32 ROPs versus the Radeon's 24 and 8, respectively, suggest the NVIDIA part has more raw throughput resources, but the benchmark is the only objective measure we have.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5,986 against the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 5,690, a 5.2% advantage.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R7 M260X compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Radeon's average benchmark score is 5,161. It is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154), 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5,211), 1.4% behind the GeForce GTX 760M (5,236), and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5,063).

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark result the NVIDIA card does not?

A: Yes, the Radeon R7 M260X has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4,631. The Quadro K4000M has no Vulkan result recorded in the database.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is at the 30th percentile.

Q: How close is the Quadro K4000M to the top of its rival group?

A: The Quadro's OpenCL score of 5,986 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996) and within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 770M (6,000). It is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982).

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a memory bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X has 64.00 GB/s. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit bus compared to the Radeon's 128-bit bus.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in almost every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses a GK104 chip on a 294 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses an Opal chip on a 77 mm² die. Transistor counts reflect this: the Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors, the Radeon just 950 million. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm²), so the size difference is purely about die area and complexity.

Memory is a major differentiator. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon has 1 GB (the database records 1024 MB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. Clock speeds are close on the core side: the Quadro runs at 601 MHz base and boost, while the Radeon runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ more, with the Quadro at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) and the Radeon at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. The Quadro has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS. The Quadro's TDP is recorded at 100 W; the Radeon has no TDP value in the database.

The bus interface differs: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro's slot width is recorded as "MXM Module," while the Radeon has no slot width entry.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the underlying architectures are different generations with different design goals. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip. Kepler was designed for high shader throughput with a focus on power efficiency per transistor. The Quadro is part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx000M series), released on May 31, 2012. Its predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, with the Opal chip. GCN 1.0 was AMD's first unified compute-centric GPU design, emphasizing asynchronous compute and general-purpose workloads. The Radeon belongs to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation, released on December 5, 2015. Its predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The API support differs slightly. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX version difference (11_0 versus 11_1) is minor but present. Both support the same OpenGL version. The Vulkan versions are close, with the NVIDIA part having a marginally newer patch version.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those features. The NVIDIA part has a higher transistor density in absolute terms due to its larger die, but the per-area density is nearly equal. The architecture differences are most visible in the resource counts: Kepler relies on many small cores (960 shading units), while GCN 1.0 uses larger compute units (384 shading units) with different scheduling characteristics. The 4 GB versus 1 GB memory allocation also reflects different target markets: the Quadro is a professional mobile workstation part, while the Radeon targets mainstream laptops.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the clear winner in raw OpenCL compute. Its 5,986 score beats the Radeon's 5,690 by 5.2%, and its higher resource counts (960 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs) support that result. The Quadro also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, with 4 GB and 89.60 GB/s versus 1 GB and 64.00 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large dataset manipulation or high-resolution texture processing, the Quadro has a decisive edge. Its 100 W TDP is higher than the Radeon's unrecorded value, but for a workstation laptop, that power budget is acceptable.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins in one specific area: Vulkan API coverage. The database records a Vulkan score of 4,631 for the Radeon, while the Quadro has no Vulkan result. If your target application uses Vulkan exclusively, the Radeon at least has a measured capability, while the NVIDIA part's Vulkan performance is unknown. The Radeon also has a higher boost clock (715 MHz versus 601 MHz for the Quadro), though this does not translate into a benchmark win. The Radeon's smaller die (77 mm² versus 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million versus 3,540 million) suggest it is the more power-frugal part, though no TDP is recorded to confirm this.

For a practical builder, the choice depends on the workload. If you need OpenCL compute, the Quadro K4000M is the better part based on the only head-to-head data available. If you need Vulkan support or want a smaller, likely cooler-running GPU for a thin laptop, the Radeon R7 M260X is the safer bet, provided you accept its lower OpenCL performance and smaller memory. The Quadro's 34th percentile versus the Radeon's 30th percentile is a small gap, but it is consistent across the recorded metrics. There is no scenario in the data where the Radeon beats the Quadro in a shared test, so the NVIDIA part is the default recommendation for performance.