AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and AMD Radeon R7 M265 are two end-of-life GPUs from different eras, with the Quadro 4000 launching in 2010 as a professional workstation part and the R7 M265 debuting in 2014 as a mobile notebook chip. Despite their different pedigrees, their single available OpenCL benchmark places them within striking distance of each other, with the Quadro 4000 scoring 4979 and the R7 M265 scoring 4929 — a 1% delta. This near-tie in raw compute output masks deep architectural divides, making the choice between them less about outright speed and more about context, features, and the specific workload at hand.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a razor-thin victory for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 in the only head-to-head test available, Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 4979 against the R7 M265's 4929 — a 1% advantage. That single win gives the Quadro 4000 a 1-0 record in head-to-head comparisons. Yet this narrow margin means neither card dominates the other in raw compute; instead, each card's strengths lie in different architectural domains that the single benchmark does not fully capture.

The Quadro 4000 wins on memory bandwidth by a landslide, offering 89.86 GB/s compared to the R7 M265's 28.80 GB/s — a 3.1x gap. This is the Quadro's clearest victory condition. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large frame buffer operations or texture-heavy rendering, the Quadro 4000's 256-bit GDDR5 interface provides a decisive edge. Its pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s also edges out the R7 M265's 6.600 GPixel/s, suggesting the Quadro is better suited to fill-rate-limited tasks like full-screen passes or anti-aliasing.

The R7 M265, conversely, wins on compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 633.6 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS by roughly 30%. With 384 shading units versus 256, the AMD chip has more raw parallel compute capacity. Its texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s also surpasses the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s, giving the R7 M265 an edge in texture-heavy shader work. The R7 M265 also benefits from a newer process node (28 nm vs 40 nm), which contributes to its higher transistor density of 12.3M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm², though the Quadro's larger die packs more total transistors (3,100 million vs 950 million).

The R7 M265's architectural wins point toward GPGPU-style compute tasks, where its higher FLOP count and newer GCN 1.0 architecture can flex their muscle. The Quadro 4000's wins point toward professional visualization, where memory bandwidth and pixel throughput matter more than raw shader math. The data suggests a clear split: Quadro 4000 for bandwidth-sensitive rendering, R7 M265 for compute-heavy workloads.

The Verdict

The data does not support a universal winner — it supports a workload-dependent choice. For anyone prioritizing memory bandwidth, pixel rate, or working with large textures and framebuffers, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the pick. Its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth is nearly triple the R7 M265's, and its 7.600 GPixel/s pixel rate is 15% higher. The Quadro 4000 also carries the professional Quadro branding, with display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, making it ready for multi-monitor workstation setups.

For anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput, the AMD Radeon R7 M265 is the pick. Its 633.6 GFLOPS FP32 performance is 30% higher than the Quadro 4000's, and its 384 shading units provide more parallel execution lanes. The R7 M265 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro 4000 lacks entirely, making it the better choice for modern API compatibility. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also newer than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16, though the narrower lane count may offset some of that advantage.

The benchmark tiebreaker is nearly meaningless: a 1% delta in Geekbench OpenCL falls well within run-to-run variance. Both cards sit at the 29th percentile against all GPUs, placing them in the same performance tier. The R7 M265's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4931 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4893 (0.7% delta), while the Quadro 4000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB at 4970 (0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (-0.4% delta). These clusters confirm both cards operate in the same mid-range compute bracket, but their architectural differences mean they will not feel equivalent in real-world applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 against the AMD Radeon R7 M265's 4929. The delta is 1%, making the Quadro 4000 the nominal winner. This score places the Quadro 4000 within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018). The R7 M265, meanwhile, sits within 0.5% of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904) and 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901). Both cards are effectively indistinguishable in this synthetic test, yet the underlying hardware tells a different story.

The Quadro 4000's win is driven by its memory subsystem. With 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, it can feed data to its 256 shading units far faster than the R7 M265's 28.80 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. This explains why the Quadro edges ahead in OpenCL, which often includes memory-heavy operations. The R7 M265's counterargument is its 633.6 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, which is 30% higher than the Quadro's 486.4 GFLOPS. In compute-bound kernels with high arithmetic intensity, the R7 M265 should theoretically pull ahead, but the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that — likely because its lower bandwidth becomes a bottleneck.

A deeper look at the R7 M265's specs reveals why it trails on bandwidth: it uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), whereas the Quadro 4000 uses GDDR5 at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The GDDR5's higher effective speed and wider bus give the Quadro a 3.1x bandwidth advantage. The R7 M265 tries to compensate with more shading units (384 vs 256) and higher clocks (825 MHz boost vs the Quadro's base clock, which is not listed but its memory runs at 702 MHz), but the OpenCL score shows those compensations only get it to within 1% of the Quadro.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265, with 633.6 GFLOPS compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS — a 30% advantage for the AMD chip.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, with 89.86 GB/s versus the R7 M265's 28.80 GB/s. This is a 3.1x difference, driven by the Quadro's 256-bit GDDR5 interface versus the R7's 128-bit DDR3.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different levels. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 M265 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro 4000 does not.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, at 7.600 GPixel/s, is 15% higher than the R7 M265's 6.600 GPixel/s.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000's OpenCL score of 4979 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970) and 1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931). The R7 M265's score of 4929 is within 0.5% of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904) and 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893).

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die (40 nm process), while the R7 M265 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die (28 nm process). The R7 M265 has higher transistor density at 12.3M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm².

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is built on the GF100 chip using the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². Fermi was NVIDIA's first architecture to natively support compute capabilities like unified L1/L2 caches and concurrent kernel execution. The Quadro 4000 features 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.20 GTexel/s.

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 is built on the Opal chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.3M / mm² — more than double the Quadro's density. GCN 1.0 was designed for compute-heavy workloads, with a focus on throughput and parallel execution. The R7 M265 features 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s.

The R7 M265 supports a broader API set, including Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan. The Quadro 4000's lack of Vulkan support is a significant architectural limitation for modern applications. The Quadro 4000 also uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the R7 M265 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 — the newer standard but with half the lanes. The R7 M265's base clock is 725 MHz with a boost of 825 MHz, whereas the Quadro 4000's core clock is not listed in the data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a 40 nm process node versus the AMD R7 M265's 28 nm. The Quadro 4000 uses GDDR5 memory at 2.8 Gbps effective, while the R7 M265 uses DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective. Both have 2 GB memory, but the Quadro's 256-bit bus gives it 89.86 GB/s bandwidth versus the R7's 128-bit bus at 28.80 GB/s.

Core configurations differ substantially: the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R7 M265 has higher FP32 performance at 633.6 GFLOPS versus the Quadro's 486.4 GFLOPS, and higher texture rate at 19.80 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. However, the Quadro 4000 has higher pixel rate at 7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s.

The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the R7 M265 has no listed TDP, power connectors, or PSU requirement — typical for a mobile chip. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The R7 M265 has no listed dimensions or display outputs. The Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01 and had a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD; the R7 M265 was released on 2014-01-08 with no launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products.