AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two direct comparisons between the AMD Radeon R7 M350 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000. The NVIDIA part wins both, and the margins are substantial. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M4000 scores 19118 against the Radeon R7 M350's 6991. That is a delta of 63.4% in favor of the NVIDIA card. The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro M4000 posts 24640 versus 5662 for the AMD part, a delta of 77%. These are not close contests; the Quadro M4000 outperforms the R7 M350 by a factor of roughly 2.7 in OpenCL and 4.4 in Vulkan.

Looking at the broader database context, the R7 M350's average benchmark score is 6327, which places it at the 36th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (average score 6330, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (average score 6282, delta 0.7%). The R7 M350 sits essentially at parity with those cards. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5467, which is lower than the R7 M350's average, despite winning the head-to-head tests. This discrepancy is explained by the composition of the benchmark suites. The Quadro M4000 has a much larger set of recorded tests, including several Passmark DirectX entries where scores are low (DirectX 9: 113, DirectX 10: 33, DirectX 11: 49, DirectX 12: 26). These drag down its average, even though its compute and Vulkan results are far ahead of the AMD part. The Quadro M4000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (average score 5483, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon 610M (average score 5444, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (average score 5501, delta -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (average score 5508, delta -0.7%). In that group, the Quadro M4000 is competitive but not dominant.

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. The Quadro M4000 wins both recorded tests, and the margins are large enough to define the performance relationship between these two cards. The R7 M350 has no wins in the head-to-head set. For compute workloads measured by OpenCL, and for Vulkan graphics, the NVIDIA card is in a different tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Meso chip. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses Maxwell 2.0, built on the GM204 chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the lithography is identical. The similarities end there.

The transistor counts differ sharply. The Quadro M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors on a die size of 398 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The R7 M350 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.4M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is physically much larger and more complex, with more than three times the transistor budget. This scale difference explains the resource gap: the Quadro M4000 has 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In every compute and rasterization resource category, the Quadro M4000 has a substantial lead.

The memory subsystems are also from different generations of technology. The R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). This yields a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. The Quadro M4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Its bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s. That is a twelve-fold difference in memory bandwidth, which has direct implications for texture-heavy workloads and large data sets.

The feature sets differ as well. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 feature level difference (12_0 vs 12_1) indicates the NVIDIA card can use additional DirectX 12 features. The Vulkan version difference (1.2.170 vs 1.4) is significant, as it indicates the NVIDIA card has access to a more recent API revision.

The bus interface also differs. The R7 M350 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro M4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This doubles the available host interface bandwidth for the NVIDIA card. The Quadro M4000 also has a defined power profile: a TDP of 120 W, a single-slot form factor, one 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The R7 M350 has no recorded TDP, slot width, or power connector data in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results give a clear picture of workload suitability. The Quadro M4000 wins both head-to-head tests, so it is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute and Vulkan rendering. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 19118 is more than double the R7 M350's 6991. The Vulkan score of 24640 is more than four times the R7 M350's 5662. For any application that uses these APIs, the NVIDIA card is the higher-performing option.

The R7 M350's strengths are not visible in the head-to-head data. Its average benchmark score of 6327 is higher than the Quadro M4000's 5467, but that is because the Quadro M4000 has a much larger benchmark suite that includes low DirectX scores. In the Passmark tests, the Quadro M4000 records DirectX 9 at 113, DirectX 10 at 33, DirectX 11 at 49, and DirectX 12 at 26. These are legacy API tests, and the low scores indicate that the Maxwell architecture prioritizes newer APIs. The Passmark G3D score of 6680 for the Quadro M4000 is close to the R7 M350's average, but the R7 M350 has no Passmark entries in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible.

For workloads that rely on memory bandwidth, the Quadro M4000 is clearly superior. Its 192.3 GB/s bandwidth versus the R7 M350's 16.00 GB/s is a decisive advantage. For large textures, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-intensive compute, the NVIDIA card will not be bottlenecked by memory. The R7 M350's narrow 64-bit bus and DDR3 memory are entry-level constraints.

The R7 M350's advantage, if any, lies in its lower resource footprint. With no recorded TDP, it may draw less power, but the database does not provide that figure. The R7 M350's smaller die (125 mm² vs 398 mm²) and fewer transistors (1,550 million vs 5,200 million) suggest it is a much simpler part. For basic display output or light 2D workloads, it would be sufficient. The Quadro M4000 is the card for actual compute or graphics work, as its resource counts and memory system indicate.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every recorded specification. The process node is identical (28 nm, TSMC), but everything else diverges.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M350 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Meso | GM204 |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1664 |

| TMUs | 24 | 104 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.120 GPixel/s | 49.47 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.36 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 779.5 GFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | Not recorded | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2015-06-28 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Pascal |

The table shows the scale of the hardware difference. The Quadro M4000 has roughly 4.3 times the shading units, 4.3 times the TMUs, and 8 times the ROPs of the R7 M350. Its FP32 throughput of 2.573 TFLOPS is more than three times the R7 M350's 779.5 GFLOPS. The pixel rate and texture rate differences are equally pronounced. The Quadro M4000 is a workstation-class part, while the R7 M350 is a mobile-class entry GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000. Its FP32 performance is 2.573 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS. The Quadro M4000 also has 1664 shading units versus 384 for the R7 M350.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M4000 in the recorded head-to-head tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19118 against the R7 M350's 6991, a delta of 63.4%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M4000 scores 24640 against 5662, a delta of 77%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s, using 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The R7 M350 has 16.00 GB/s, using 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: No. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro M4000 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

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

A: The R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6327, placing it at the 36th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M4000 has an average score of 5467, placing it at the 32nd percentile. The Quadro M4000's lower average is due to its inclusion of legacy Passmark DirectX tests with low scores.

Q: Which card has a larger physical die?

A: The Quadro M4000. Its GM204 chip is 398 mm² with 5,200 million transistors, while the R7 M350's Meso chip is 125 mm² with 1,550 million transistors. The Quadro M4000 also has a higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.4M per mm².