AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 represent two very different approaches to mobile and workstation graphics, separated by roughly two years of release schedules and distinct architectural philosophies. The benchmark data shows a split decision: the R7 M350 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the Quadro K4000 dominates in Vulkan. The R7 M350 edges out a 2.6% win in OpenCL, but the Quadro K4000 counters with a commanding 18.7% lead in Vulkan. Both cards sit near the bottom of the GPU performance percentile rankings, with the R7 M350 at the 36th percentile and the Quadro K4000 at the 34th percentile, placing them within a narrow band of entry-level performance despite their different designs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmarks available for direct comparison paint a clear picture of divergent strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991 against the NVIDIA Quadro K4000’s 6816, yielding a 2.6% advantage for the AMD part. This is a narrow margin, but it is consistent with the R7 M350’s raw compute specification: 779.5 GFLOPS FP32 performance from 384 shading units. The Quadro K4000, despite having double the shading units at 768, only manages 1,244.2 GFLOPS FP32, which suggests that the AMD architecture extracts more efficiency per compute unit in this particular workload.

The Vulkan results flip the script decisively. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 posts 6964, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 trails at 5662, a deficit of 18.7%. This is a substantial gap that cannot be explained by clock speeds alone, as both cards operate in similar frequency ranges. The Quadro K4000’s newer Vulkan driver support (version 1.2.175 versus the R7 M350’s 1.2.170) and its Kepler architecture’s geometry throughput likely contribute to this advantage. The texture rate difference is stark: the Quadro K4000 delivers 51.84 GTexel/s versus the R7 M350’s 24.36 GTexel/s, a 2.1x advantage that directly impacts graphics-heavy workloads.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split. The R7 M350 averages 6327 across its two tests, while the Quadro K4000 averages 5982 across three tests. However, the Quadro K4000’s average is dragged down by its Geekbench Metal score of 4166, a test the R7 M350 does not have a result for. When looking at the nearest rivals, the R7 M350’s average of 6327 puts it within 0% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330) and just 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282). The Quadro K4000’s 5982 average places it 0.1% behind its mobile sibling, the Quadro K4000M (5986), and 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on the Meso chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the Kepler architecture on the GK106 chip, also fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with 2,540 million transistors spread across a 221 mm² die, giving a lower density of 11.5M per mm². The Quadro K4000’s larger die and higher transistor count reflect a more complex geometry pipeline, while the R7 M350’s denser packing suggests a focus on compute efficiency.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering a modest 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s — an 8.4x bandwidth advantage. This disparity explains the Vulkan performance gap, as memory bandwidth is critical for shader-heavy scenes and texture fetches. The R7 M350’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K4000 runs at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), further widening the bandwidth chasm.

Compute resources also diverge significantly. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 8.12 GPixel/s. The Quadro K4000 doubles most of these: 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s and that 51.84 GTexel/s texture rate. The FP32 throughput tells a similar story, with the Quadro K4000 at 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus the R7 M350’s 779.5 GFLOPS — a 59.6% advantage. Interestingly, the R7 M350 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (779.5 GFLOPS), while the Quadro K4000 has no listed FP16 capability, which could matter for certain compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins in scenarios that favor raw compute throughput per watt and modern API feature support. Its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a full feature level ahead of the Quadro K4000’s DirectX 12 (11_0), making it better suited for newer game titles and compute applications that leverage DX12’s low-level access. The R7 M350 also benefits from a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which offers higher bandwidth per lane than the Quadro K4000’s PCIe 2.0 x16. For compute workloads that are not memory-bandwidth limited, the R7 M350’s 2.6% OpenCL win suggests its GCN architecture handles parallel math efficiently, and its FP16 support gives it a niche advantage in machine learning inference tasks that use reduced precision.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins decisively in graphics-heavy workloads and any scenario where memory bandwidth is king. Its 134.8 GB/s bandwidth makes it far superior for texture-heavy rendering, large frame buffers, and multi-sample anti-aliasing. The 18.7% Vulkan victory demonstrates its strength in modern cross-platform graphics APIs, and its 51.84 GTexel/s texture rate is over double the R7 M350’s. For professional visualization workloads common in CAD and DCC applications, the Quadro K4000’s higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s) and larger ROP count (24 versus 8) translate to better fill-rate-bound performance. The Quadro K4000 also offers display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2) in the fact pack, whereas the R7 M350’s outputs are unspecified, making the NVIDIA card a more deployable workstation solution out of the box.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 averages 6327 across its two benchmark tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 averages 5982 across three tests, giving the AMD part a 5.8% advantage in average score.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth from its 192-bit GDDR5 interface, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 has only 16.00 GB/s from its 64-bit DDR3 interface, a difference of over 8x.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The Quadro K4000 has 64% more transistors.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX features?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is a higher feature level than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000’s DirectX 12 (11_0), making the AMD card more future-proof for DX12 titles.

Q: What is the power consumption of the Quadro K4000?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has a specified TDP of 80 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The R7 M350 has no TDP listed in the data.

Q: How do these cards rank against other GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is at the 34th percentile. Both are closely matched to rivals like the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330 average) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282 average).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M350 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Meso | GK106 |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 134.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.12 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.36 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 779.5 GFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | Not specified | 80 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Not specified | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2013-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 1,269 USD |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Maxwell |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 6991 | 6816 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 5662 | 6964 |

| Geekbench Metal | Not available | 4166 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6327 | 5982 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 36 | 34 |