AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along the two tests both cards share. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 takes both head-to-head contests outright, and the margins are not close. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the Radeon R7 M340's 4,932 — a 287.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: 24,640 versus 5,193, a 374.5% lead. There is no test in the shared pool where the AMD card comes out ahead. The R7 M340's zero wins in the head-to-head set reflects a fundamental performance tier difference rather than a narrow edge case.

Looking beyond the direct comparison, the Quadro M4000's average benchmark score of 5,467 places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M340's average of 5,063 sits at the 30th percentile. Those percentile figures are surprisingly close given the massive delta in the shared tests. The explanation is that the Quadro M4000 has a broader benchmark suite — including Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests — while the R7 M340 only has the two Geekbench entries. The extra Passmark scores drag the Quadro's average down relative to its Geekbench dominance. For instance, the Quadro scores 6,680 in Passmark G3D and 2,660 in GPU compute, but only 33 in DirectX 10, 49 in DirectX 11, and 26 in DirectX 12. Those low legacy DirectX scores pull its average toward the R7 M340's territory.

The R7 M340's nearest rivals tell a similar story of mediocrity. It sits exactly level with the AMD Radeon R7 240 (0% delta), marginally ahead of the FirePro W4170M by 0.6%, and ahead of the R5 M430 by 0.9%. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, trades blows with the R7 M440 (-0.3%), AMD 610M (+0.4%), GTX 765M (-0.6%), and MX130 (-0.7%) — all within a 1% band around its average. So the Quadro's competition is a cluster of low-end discrete and integrated parts, but its raw compute in OpenCL and Vulkan is in a different league from the R7 M340.

For practical use, the Quadro M4000 wins any workload that stresses OpenCL or Vulkan compute. The R7 M340 has no counterargument in the data. If a task relies on DirectX performance, the Quadro has those numbers on record (albeit weak ones), while the R7 M340 has no DirectX benchmark scores at all. The AMD card's only "win" is that it exists in a lower performance envelope, which might suit power-constrained or legacy systems — but the FACT PACK provides no TDP, slot width, or power connector data for the R7 M340, so even that angle cannot be quantified.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior card for any compute-oriented task measured here. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is nearly four times the R7 M340's, and its Vulkan score is almost five times higher. If you are choosing between these two for a workstation or any GPU-accelerated workload, the Quadro M4000 is the only defensible pick based on benchmark evidence.

The R7 M340's case rests entirely on its 30th percentile placement and its closeness to peers like the R7 240 and R5 M430. Those are not selling points; they are descriptions of a GPU that sits at the bottom of the performance distribution. Its 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is a structural limitation that no driver or software update can overcome. The Quadro M4000, with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 192.3 GB/s, has twelve times the memory bandwidth. For any data-heavy workload, that difference alone would be decisive even if the compute scores were closer — and they are not.

Who should pick the R7 M340? Only someone who cannot physically install the Quadro M4000. The Quadro is a 241 mm single-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the R7 M340's dimensions and power requirements are not listed — it is likely a mobile or low-profile part. If your system cannot accommodate a full-length PCIe 3.0 x16 card, the R7 M340 might be the only option that fits. But that is a physical constraint, not a performance recommendation. The Quadro M4000 also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M340 tops out at Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0). For forward-looking software, the Quadro has the API headroom.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a story of overwhelming NVIDIA dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 posts 19,118 points against the R7 M340's 4,932. That is a 287.6% delta in the Quadro's favor. To put it in proportion, the R7 M340 would need to nearly quadruple its score to match. The Quadro's OpenCL result is not just better; it is in a different performance class.

Geekbench Vulkan is even more lopsided. The Quadro M4000 scores 24,640, while the R7 M340 manages 5,193. The delta expands to 374.5%. That means the Quadro delivers roughly 4.7 times the Vulkan performance of the AMD part. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that tends to reward raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth — both areas where the Quadro's specifications (1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 2.573 TFLOPS FP32) dwarf the R7 M340's (320 shading units, 20 TMUs, 8 ROPs, 653.4 GFLOPS FP32).

The Quadro's FP32 throughput is 3.9 times higher, which tracks closely with the OpenCL delta. The Vulkan delta is even larger, suggesting the Quadro's memory subsystem (192.3 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s) amplifies its advantage in API-level workloads. The R7 M340's FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro's FP16 is not listed — but given the FP32 gap, the Quadro would still lead unless its FP16 was severely handicapped, which the data does not suggest.

No other benchmarks are shared between the two cards. The Quadro has Passmark results across DirectX 9 (113), DirectX 10 (33), DirectX 11 (49), DirectX 12 (26), G2D (673), G3D (6,680), and GPU compute (2,660), plus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (680). The R7 M340 has none of these. That absence is itself informative: the AMD card has no recorded DirectX or rasterization scores, so any claim about its gaming or legacy API performance would be speculation. The Quadro's DirectX scores are low in absolute terms, but they exist, which is more than can be said for the R7 M340.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 averages 5,467 across all its recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 averages 5,063. The Quadro leads by roughly 8%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M4000 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro scores 19,118 versus the R7 M340's 4,932, a 287.6% advantage. That is nearly quadruple the AMD card's performance.

Q: Does the R7 M340 win any benchmark against the Quadro M4000?

A: No. In the two shared head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the Quadro wins both. The win count is 2 for the Quadro and 0 for the R7 M340.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The R7 M340 has 16.00 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. That is a 12x difference in favor of the Quadro.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan API support?

A: The Quadro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M340 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the R7 M340's DirectX 12 (12_0).

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

A: The Quadro M4000 is within 0.7% of the R7 M440, AMD 610M, GTX 765M, and MX130 (deltas of -0.3%, +0.4%, -0.6%, and -0.7% respectively). The R7 M340 is within 1.3% of the R7 240, FirePro W4170M, R5 M430, and R7 Graphics (deltas of 0%, +0.6%, +0.9%, and +1.3%).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages entirely. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 M340 uses the Meso chip on GCN 3.0 architecture, also 28 nm at TSMC, but with only 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die — a density of 12.4M per mm². The Quadro has 3.35 times the transistor count and a die more than three times larger.

The compute resources reflect that gap. The Quadro fields 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The R7 M340 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is 5.2x the shaders, 5.2x the TMUs, and 8x the ROPs for the Quadro. Pixel rate stands at 49.47 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 8.168 GPixel/s for the AMD part. Texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 20.42 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.573 TFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Quadro's generation is listed as "Quadro Maxwell (Mx000)" with a predecessor of Quadro Kepler and successor of Quadro Pascal. The R7 M340's generation is "Gem System (R7 M300)" with a predecessor of Solar System and successor of Polaris Mobile. The Quadro is a workstation part from NVIDIA's professional line; the R7 M340 is a mobile-oriented AMD part, though the FACT PACK does not list its dimensions or power requirements. Both are end-of-life products.

The API support diverges at the margins. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The feature level difference (12_1 versus 12_0) matters for certain DirectX 12 effects, and the Vulkan version gap (1.4 versus 1.2.170) means the Quadro can run newer Vulkan extensions. The Quadro also has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the R7 M340's display outputs are not listed.

Specification Differences

The specification table highlights where these two parts diverge most sharply. Memory is the clearest differentiator: the Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M340 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s. The memory clock is listed as 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the AMD.

Clock behavior differs too. The Quadro's base and boost clocks are null in the FACT PACK, while the R7 M340 has a base clock of 943 MHz and a boost clock of 1021 MHz. The Quadro's clocks are not specified, but its memory bandwidth and compute rates are recorded. The R7 M340's FP16 performance is listed at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1 with FP32), while the Quadro's FP16 is null.

Physical specifications set them apart. The Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. Its TDP is 120 W. The R7 M340 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, or dimensions. The Quadro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface; the R7 M340 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which halves the available bus bandwidth for data transfers.

The Quadro's display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 ports. The R7 M340's display outputs are not recorded. Both cards are end-of-life, with the Quadro released on 2015-06-28 and the R7 M340 on 2015-05-04 — about two months apart. Neither has a launch MSRP in the data. The transistor density is slightly higher on the Quadro (13.1M / mm² versus 12.4M / mm²), reflecting the larger, more complex die. In every measurable specification that affects performance — memory capacity, memory type, bus width, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 — the Quadro M4000 leads by wide margins.