AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and AMD Radeon R7 M265 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different design eras and philosophies. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, victor in raw compute benchmarks, yet the underlying architectures tell a more nuanced story about their respective strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 against the AMD Radeon R7 M265's 4929. This gives the Quadro a 5.7% advantage, marking its sole win in the head-to-head comparison. While a 282-point gap is not a landslide, it is a consistent margin that places the Quadro in a slightly higher performance tier.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this positioning. The Quadro 4000M's score of 5211 places it just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236) and 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M (5284). More tellingly, it sits 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154). This places the Quadro 4000M in a tightly contested cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs, where a few percentage points separate the entire field.

The Radeon R7 M265's score of 4929, conversely, aligns it with a different set of competitors. It is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931), showing a 0% delta. It edges out the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904) by 0.5%, a professional-grade card that it trails in the broader market. Interestingly, the data shows it is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893). This suggests the R7 M265's compute performance is comparable to much older discrete desktop parts, highlighting its modest standing.

In terms of overall market standing, the Quadro 4000M sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M265 is just one point lower at the 29th percentile. This near-identical percentile ranking confirms that while the Quadro holds a lead, both are firmly in the lower half of the performance spectrum. The benchmark results indicate that the Quadro 4000M is the faster part, but not by a margin that would fundamentally change the user experience in most tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, and is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is an older, larger design, with a die size of 332 mm² and a transistor count of 1,950 million. The resulting transistor density is 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M265 uses the Opal chip, based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a more modern 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This allows for a significantly smaller and more efficient design, with a die size of just 77 mm² and a transistor count of 950 million. The transistor density is 12.3 million per square millimeter, more than double that of the Fermi chip.

These architectural differences manifest in several key specifications. The Quadro 4000M features 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. Its memory subsystem is built around 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. The R7 M265, despite having more shading units at 384, is hamstrung by a narrower configuration: only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. It also uses 2 GB of memory, but it is slower DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of just 28.80 GB/s. This is a critical difference, as the Quadro's memory bandwidth is nearly three times higher.

Clock speeds and compute rates tell a similar story. The R7 M265 has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz, while the Quadro 4000M's base and boost clocks are not listed. The R7 M265's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro's memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). Despite the R7 M265's higher core clock, the Quadro's superior pixel rate (6.650 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (26.60 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s) show its advantage in those specific pipelines. Their FP32 compute is closely matched, with the Quadro at 638.4 GFLOPS and the R7 M265 at 633.6 GFLOPS.

Feature support also diverges. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it more future-proof in terms of API compatibility. The Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and is a MXM Module, while the R7 M265 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The Quadro also has a listed TDP of 100 W, while the R7 M265's TDP is not specified.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000M wins in the only direct benchmark, but its advantages are more structural. Its 80.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth is a massive asset for any workload that is bandwidth-sensitive, such as large texture reads or compute tasks that process large data sets. The higher texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s also suggests it can handle more complex filtering operations. With 32 ROPs, it is likely better suited for fill-rate-bound scenarios at higher resolutions, despite the negligible difference in pixel rate.

The Radeon R7 M265's wins are more about efficiency and modern features. Its 28 nm process and smaller die suggest it would be a more power-efficient part, although no TDP is listed to confirm this. The higher number of shading units (384) gives it a theoretical edge in pure ALU-bound workloads, even if the FP32 result is nearly identical. Its support for Vulkan 1.2.170 is a clear advantage, as it allows the GPU to be used in modern APIs that the Quadro cannot access. The newer release date and PCIe 3.0 interface also make it a more modern platform component.

In practical terms, the data suggests the Quadro 4000M is the stronger choice for tasks that rely on memory throughput and texture filtering. The R7 M265 would be the better pick for software that can leverage its newer API support, particularly Vulkan, or in a system where its smaller, more modern design is a better fit.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the faster GPU, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 5.7% lead over the AMD Radeon R7 M265. Its superior memory bandwidth, texture rate, and ROP count make it a more capable part for traditional graphics and compute workloads. It also sits in a slightly stronger competitive position, ranking just behind the GeForce GTX 760M and ahead of the Quadro K3100M.

However, the Radeon R7 M265 is not without its merits. It offers more shading units, a higher clock speed, and crucial modern API support, including Vulkan. Its 28 nm process and smaller die size point to a more efficient design. For users who prioritize software compatibility and power efficiency over raw compute throughput, the R7 M265 is a viable option. Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload: the Quadro 4000M for maximum performance on older APIs, the R7 M265 for a more modern feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, which is 5.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M265's score of 4929.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 has a much lower bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU offers Vulkan API support?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M does not have any Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of manufacturing process?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is built on a 40 nm process, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 uses a more advanced 28 nm process.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per mm², whereas the AMD Radeon R7 M265 has a density of 12.3 million transistors per mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's 336 shading units.