AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are both end-of-life graphics cards aimed at very different segments, yet they land close in the benchmark database. The data shows a single head-to-head OpenCL result where the AMD card wins, but the NVIDIA card counters with a Vulkan score the AMD card cannot match. This comparison breaks down along API support, architectural generation, and the specific workloads each card was designed to serve.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 wins the only directly comparable benchmark in the database: Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 4929 beats the Quadro P400’s 4249 by a 16% margin. This is a decisive single-test victory, and it aligns with the AMD card’s higher shading unit count and wider memory bus, which benefit compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The R7 M265’s percentile rank of 29 also places it slightly above the P400’s 27th percentile, reinforcing that in raw OpenCL compute, the older AMD part holds a measurable edge.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins in a category the AMD card cannot contest: Vulkan. The P400 scores 5119 in Geekbench Vulkan, a test the R7 M265 has no recorded result for. This is not a modest advantage — it is a complete absence of competition. The P400 also reports a higher average benchmark score across all its recorded tests (4684) compared to the R7 M265’s single-test average of 4929, though that average is skewed by the P400’s lower OpenCL result. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the P400 is the only viable option between the two.

The use-case split is clear: the R7 M265 is the stronger OpenCL compute card, while the P400 is the only card here that supports modern Vulkan workloads. The AMD card’s advantage in OpenCL is substantial, but the NVIDIA card’s Vulkan capability opens a software ecosystem the AMD part simply does not participate in.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and foundries. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 uses the Opal chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip on Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, with a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter — over twice the density of the AMD chip.

The core configurations differ significantly. The R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The P400 has fewer shading units (256) and TMUs (16), but double the ROPs at 16. Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA part: the P400 runs at a base of 1228 MHz and boosts to 1252 MHz, while the R7 M265 operates at 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. Despite the AMD card’s higher shader count, the P400’s higher clocks and greater ROP count allow it to nearly match the AMD card in pixel and texture throughput.

Memory subsystems tell another story. The R7 M265 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The P400 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.06 GB/s — higher bandwidth despite a narrower interface. The P400 also supports a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, double the R7 M265’s PCIe 3.0 x8 connection. API support diverges sharply: the R7 M265 reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929 against the Quadro P400’s 4249. That is a 16% delta in favor of AMD. The margin is substantial and reflects the R7 M265’s architectural strengths: 384 shading units versus 256, a 128-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, and a higher transistor count per compute unit despite the older process node. The P400’s higher clocks (1228/1252 MHz vs 725/825 MHz) and doubled ROP count (16 vs 8) are not enough to close the gap in this OpenCL test.

The P400’s Vulkan score of 5119, while not head-to-head, provides context. If the R7 M265 were tested in Vulkan, its older GCN architecture and lower Vulkan API version (1.2.170 vs 1.4) would likely put it at a disadvantage, but the database contains no such result. What the data does show is that the P400’s Vulkan performance is 20% higher than its own OpenCL score (5119 vs 4249), indicating the Pascal architecture is significantly better optimized for Vulkan workloads.

Looking at nearest rivals, the R7 M265’s 4929 OpenCL score sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893) and just 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901). The P400’s average score of 4684 places it 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628). These comparisons show both cards operating in a similar performance tier, despite their architectural differences.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 16% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P400’s 4249 in the same test.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro P400 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the P400 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119 and supports Vulkan 1.4. The AMD R7 M265 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 but has no recorded Vulkan benchmark result.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, compared to 256 on the NVIDIA Quadro P400. However, the P400 has double the ROPs (16 vs 8).

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The P400 delivers 32.06 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The R7 M265 delivers 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The R7 M265 is built on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the P400 uses a 14 nm Samsung process. The P400’s chip has over triple the transistor count (3,300 million vs 950 million).

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, over three times the R7 M265’s 6.600 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher clocks and doubled ROP count.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for specific workloads. Pick the AMD Radeon R7 M265 if your priority is OpenCL compute performance. Its 16% lead over the P400 in the only head-to-head benchmark is decisive, and its 384 shading units and 128-bit memory bus provide a solid foundation for compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The R7 M265 also holds a slightly higher percentile rank (29th vs 27th), indicating marginally better overall standing in the database.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro P400 if you need Vulkan support or professional display features. The P400’s Vulkan score of 5119 is the only Vulkan result between the two cards, and its Vulkan 1.4 API support is substantially newer than the R7 M265’s 1.2.170. The P400 also offers a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface (double the R7 M265’s x8), three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a 30 W TDP with no power connectors — features that matter for workstation integration. Its higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.03 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s) also make it better suited for graphics output tasks.

For general-purpose use, the R7 M265 wins on raw compute, but the P400 wins on modern API support and professional feature set. The R7 M265’s single OpenCL victory is impressive, but the P400’s Vulkan capability and architectural advantages (14 nm process, 3,300 million transistors, GDDR5 memory) suggest it is the more future-proof choice for software that moves beyond OpenCL.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M265 | NVIDIA Quadro P400 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 950 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 1228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 825 MHz | 1252 MHz |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 32.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 20.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 20.03 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 633.6 GFLOPS | 641.0 GFLOPS |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| TDP | Not specified | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Display Outputs | Not specified | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 150 mm (5.9 in) x 69 mm (2.7 in) |

| Release Date | 2014-01-08 | 2017-02-06 |