AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a narrow but clear edge for the Quadro. The Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points, while the R7 M360 trails at 4,638 points, yielding a delta of 7.4% in favor of NVIDIA. This is not a dominant margin, but it is consistent enough to establish a performance hierarchy between these two end-of-life parts.

Context from the nearest-rivals data reinforces the closeness of this pairing. The Quadro 4000 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970), which is a remarkable comparison given the generational gap. It also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998) by 0.4% and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018) by 0.8%. Meanwhile, the R7 M360's average score of 4,931 places it just 0.4% behind the Quadro in aggregate, even though the single OpenCL test shows a 7.4% gap. The R7 M360 is also within 0.6% of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901), and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893).

The head-to-head table lists only one test, and the Quadro wins it. The R7 M360 does not win any shared benchmark. That said, the R7 M360 has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,223, which is not available for the Quadro—so the AMD card demonstrates capability in a newer API that the NVIDIA card cannot match in this dataset. For OpenCL workloads, however, the Quadro is the faster card by a meaningful single-test margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die is large at 529 mm², housing 3,100 million transistors, which yields a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 M360, by contrast, uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. Its die is much smaller at 125 mm², with 1,550 million transistors, achieving a higher density of 12.4M per mm².

Shading unit counts differ significantly: the Quadro has 256 shading units, while the R7 M360 has 384. However, the R7 M360's advantage in raw shader count does not translate into a win in the OpenCL benchmark. The Quadro counters with 32 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, whereas the R7 M360 has 24 TMUs and only 8 ROPs. This disparity in ROP count likely explains why the Quadro's pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s, while lower than the R7 M360's 9.000 GPixel/s, is still competitive in compute tasks that rely less on fill rate.

Compute throughput tells a mixed story. The R7 M360 delivers 864.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the Quadro's 486.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M360 also supports FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. Yet in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro wins. This suggests that the benchmark favors memory bandwidth or driver optimization over raw FLOP counts. The Quadro's memory subsystem is substantially stronger: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivers 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R7 M360 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s—a sixfold difference.

The memory clock rates reflect this gap: the Quadro runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the R7 M360 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro also has a higher TDP at 142 W, whereas the R7 M360 has no TDP listed. The Quadro is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the R7 M360 has no slot width, power connector, or PSU guidance in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it outperforms the R7 M360 by 7.4%, which is a decisive margin for a single test. The Quadro's nearest-rival data also shows it within 0.2% of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, indicating that its OpenCL performance is surprisingly modern despite its Fermi-era roots. For compute tasks that rely on OpenCL—such as scientific simulation, rendering, or GPGPU workloads—the Quadro is the safer choice based on this dataset.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins in architectural modernity and API support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6, while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan support listed. The R7 M360 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,223, which shows it can handle Vulkan workloads, though no comparative data exists for the Quadro. For users targeting Vulkan-based applications or newer DirectX 12 features, the R7 M360 is the only card in this pairing that can do so.

The R7 M360 also wins on efficiency of design. Its 28 nm process and smaller die (125 mm² vs. 529 mm²) mean it packs more transistors per area (12.4M vs. 5.9M per mm²). It also has nearly double the FP32 throughput (864.0 GFLOPS vs. 486.4 GFLOPS) and adds FP16 support that the Quadro lacks entirely. None of these advantages produced a benchmark victory, but they suggest the R7 M360 is better suited for power-constrained or modern-API environments where raw OpenCL scores are not the sole criterion.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows several fields where the two GPUs diverge. The process node differs: 40 nm for the Quadro, 28 nm for the R7 M360. Transistor count is 3,100 million vs. 1,550 million, and die size is 529 mm² vs. 125 mm². Transistor density is 5.9M vs. 12.4M per mm². The Quadro has a memory clock of 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the R7 M360 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory type is GDDR5 for NVIDIA and DDR3 for AMD, with bus widths of 256-bit and 64-bit, respectively. Bandwidth is 89.86 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s.

Shading units are 256 vs. 384, TMUs are 32 vs. 24, and ROPs are 32 vs. 8. Pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s vs. 9.000 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s vs. 27.00 GTexel/s. FP32 is 486.4 GFLOPS vs. 864.0 GFLOPS, with the R7 M360 adding FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a TDP of 142 W, a single-slot form factor, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W; the R7 M360 has none of these listed. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort for the Quadro, with none listed for the R7 M360. The Quadro measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the R7 M360 has no dimensions listed.

DirectX support differs: 12 (11_0) for the Quadro vs. 12 (12_0) for the R7 M360. Vulkan is absent for NVIDIA and version 1.2.170 for AMD. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. The Quadro's launch MSRP is 1,199 USD, while the R7 M360 has no launch price listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979, beating the AMD Radeon R7 M360's 4,638 by 7.4%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M360 support Vulkan?

A: Yes. The R7 M360 lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,223. The Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 4000 delivers 89.86 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the R7 M360 provides 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 interface.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The R7 M360 has a density of 12.4M transistors per mm² on its 125 mm² die, while the Quadro 4000 has 5.9M per mm² on a 529 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R7 M360 has 384 shading units, compared to the Quadro 4000's 256. Despite this, the Quadro wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01, while the R7 M360 came later on 2015-05-04.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear if narrow choice for OpenCL-centric workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 7.4%, and its nearest-rival comparison shows it within 0.2% of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB—an extraordinary result for a 2010-era card. The Quadro also holds a massive memory bandwidth advantage (89.86 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s), which likely drives its OpenCL success despite lower raw compute numbers. Its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory make it the more capable card for bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the better choice for users who prioritize modern API support and architectural efficiency. It offers DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and FP16 compute, none of which are available on the Quadro. Its 28 nm process and higher transistor density (12.4M vs. 5.9M per mm²) reflect a more modern design, and its 864.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is nearly double the Quadro's. However, none of these advantages translated into a benchmark win in the available data.

The verdict depends on workload. For OpenCL compute and legacy compatibility, the Quadro 4000 is the pick. For Vulkan-based applications or newer DirectX 12 features, the R7 M360 is the only option that supports them. Both cards sit at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers in the current landscape. The Quadro's 142 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it a heavier power draw, while the R7 M360's lack of TDP data suggests it is designed for lower-power mobile or embedded systems. Ultimately, the Quadro wins on measured performance, while the R7 M360 wins on feature set and efficiency.