AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but the benchmark data shows a clear, measurable winner. In the only shared benchmark test, the R7 M350 decisively outperforms the Quadro K4000M, posting a 16.8% higher score. This result, combined with architectural and specification differences, positions the AMD part as the stronger compute performer despite the NVIDIA chip’s larger physical footprint and higher power envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986. This gives the AMD part a 16.8% lead, a substantial margin that overshadows the NVIDIA GPU’s theoretical advantages in raw throughput. The R7 M350’s win is not marginal; it is a dominant single-test victory that defines the entire head-to-head matchup.

Breaking down the score, the R7 M350’s average benchmark score of 6327 is also higher than the Quadro K4000M’s 5986, reinforcing the pattern. The AMD GPU’s percentile ranking of 36 versus the NVIDIA GPU’s 34 further confirms that the R7 M350 sits in a slightly better position relative to all other GPUs in the database. While the delta in percentiles is small, it aligns perfectly with the 16.8% OpenCL delta, suggesting the AMD architecture extracts more practical performance from its resources.

The Quadro K4000M does have higher theoretical peak numbers in several categories—its FP32 compute is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS for the R7 M350, and its texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s—yet these advantages do not translate into a benchmark win. This indicates that the Geekbench OpenCL workload favors the R7 M350’s memory architecture or driver efficiency over the Quadro’s raw shading power. The 16.8% delta is the only head-to-head data point, and it consistently favors AMD.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the superior choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance in a mobile workstation or laptop. Its 16.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is a decisive margin that cannot be ignored. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications—such as rendering, video encoding, or scientific simulations—the R7 M350 delivers measurably better results.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, despite its older Kepler architecture and higher theoretical specs, does not win any benchmark in this comparison. It is the slower option in the single test where both are measured. However, its 100 W TDP and MXM Module slot width suggest it was designed for larger, more power-hungry systems, whereas the R7 M350’s lack of a listed TDP implies a more power-efficient design. That efficiency advantage, combined with the performance win, makes the AMD part the logical pick for newer mobile platforms.

Users should choose the R7 M350 if they want the higher benchmark score and a more modern GCN 3.0 architecture. The Quadro K4000M is only preferable if the system requires its specific MXM-B (3.0) interface or its 256-bit memory bus, though neither feature contributes to a benchmark victory. Strictly from the data, the R7 M350 wins the performance crown, and the Quadro K4000M offers no countervailing measured benefit.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural families. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on the Meso chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC, but that is where the similarity ends.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The Quadro K4000M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the R7 M350 has just 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. This means the NVIDIA chip is more than double the die size with over twice the transistor count, yet it still loses in the benchmark. The transistor density is nearly identical—12.4M / mm² for AMD versus 12.0M / mm² for NVIDIA—so the difference is purely about scale and design philosophy.

The R7 M350’s GCN 3.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro K4000M’s Kepler only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), indicating a more modern feature set for the AMD part. Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170). The R7 M350 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Quadro K4000M has no listed FP16 capability, making the AMD part more versatile for mixed-precision workloads.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are the most striking specification difference. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of just 16.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M also has 4 GB, but it uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s—more than five times the bandwidth. This is a significant theoretical advantage for NVIDIA, yet it does not produce a benchmark win, highlighting that bandwidth alone is not the bottleneck in the OpenCL test.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The R7 M350 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz with a 1015 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4000M is locked at a flat 601 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD part’s higher clocks help compensate for its narrower memory bus and lower raw compute.

In terms of execution resources, the Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the R7 M350’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU’s 2.5x shading unit advantage and 3.3x TMU advantage are substantial on paper. Pixel rate also favors NVIDIA at 12.02 GPixel/s versus 8.12 GPixel/s. However, the AMD part’s higher clocks and newer architecture close the real-world gap, and the benchmark confirms the R7 M350 wins despite these numerical disadvantages.

The Quadro K4000M has a listed TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the R7 M350 has no TDP listed and uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA part also has power connectors listed as "None" and display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the AMD part lacks those details entirely. These differences point to the Quadro being a larger, more power-hungry module for traditional mobile workstations, while the R7 M350 appears suited to a broader range of mobile implementations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991, which is 16.8% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M’s score of 5986.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M win any benchmark against the R7 M350?

A: No. In the only head-to-head benchmark test (Geekbench OpenCL), the R7 M350 wins. The Quadro K4000M has zero benchmark wins in this comparison.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The R7 M350 has 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro K4000M has 89.60 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The AMD R7 M350’s Meso chip has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M’s GK104 chip has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a higher FP32 rating at 1,153.9 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD R7 M350’s 779.5 GFLOPS. Despite this, the R7 M350 wins the actual benchmark.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6327, while the Quadro K4000M has an average of 5986. The R7 M350 also ranks at the 36th percentile versus the Quadro’s 34th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins in the only measured category: compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6991 is 16.8% higher than the Quadro K4000M’s 5986, making it the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration. This includes general-purpose GPU computing, image processing, and any software that leverages the GPU for non-graphics tasks. The R7 M350 also has a higher average benchmark score (6327 versus 5986) and a better percentile ranking (36 versus 34), indicating stronger overall standing in the database.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins in theoretical specification categories, though these do not translate into benchmark victories. Its 89.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is 5.6 times higher than the R7 M350’s 16.00 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bound workloads that are not represented in the OpenCL test. Its 1,153.9 GFLOPS FP32 compute and 48.08 GTexel/s texture rate are also higher, suggesting potential in tasks that scale with raw shading units. Additionally, the Quadro’s 100 W TDP and MXM-B (3.0) interface make it suitable for larger, more powerful mobile workstations that can accommodate its power and size.

For end-users, the R7 M350 is the better pick for OpenCL-centric applications due to its measured performance lead. The Quadro K4000M is only preferable if the system requires its specific interface or if software is known to favor its higher bandwidth and compute resources—though the available data does not support that preference. The R7 M350’s modern GCN 3.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support also give it a forward-looking edge. In short, the R7 M350 wins where it counts, and the Quadro K4000M’s advantages remain theoretical.