AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras, built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro 4000M is a Fermi-based professional-class GPU from early 2011, while the R7 M360 is a GCN 3.0 consumer part from mid-2015. Benchmark data shows the older Quadro holds a clear lead in the single shared test, but the newer AMD chip counters with a much broader feature set and higher raw shader count.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the available OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4638 points. This gives the Quadro a 12.4% advantage in that specific test.

Q: How do these GPUs rank compared to all other GPUs?

A: The Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile, while the R7 M360 sits at the 29th percentile. Both are within 1 percentile of each other, indicating they are in a similar overall performance tier despite the Quadro's win in the head-to-head test.

Q: What are the closest performance rivals for each card?

A: For the Quadro 4000M, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236 score, just 0.5% higher). For the R7 M360, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929 score, virtually identical with a 0% delta).

Q: Do these GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: The R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) but has no listed Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 2 GB of memory, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M360 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with only 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, a five-fold difference in bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units. However, the Quadro has more texture mapping units (56 vs 24) and more ROPs (32 vs 8).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip based on Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 uses the Meso chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a newer 28 nm process.

The transistor counts tell an interesting story. The Quadro packs 1,950 million transistors on a large 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of 5.9M transistors per mm². The R7 M360 holds 1,550 million transistors on a much smaller 125 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.4M transistors per mm² — more than double the density of the Fermi chip.

The GCN 3.0 architecture in the R7 M360 provides modern API support, including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Fermi-based Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan entirely. This means the AMD card is better positioned for modern titles and compute workloads that leverage these newer APIs.

Clock speeds differ significantly, with the R7 M360 running at a base of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1125 MHz. The Quadro 4000M's base and boost clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the R7 M360's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the R7 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro is packaged as an MXM Module, whereas the R7 M360's slot width is not specified.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in raw compute performance where memory bandwidth matters. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is vastly superior to the R7 M360's 14.40 GB/s. This allows the Quadro to achieve a 12.4% higher OpenCL score despite having fewer shading units and a lower FP32 rating. For professional workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound, the Quadro's 256-bit GDDR5 configuration is a decisive advantage.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 wins in the areas of modern feature support and pixel throughput. Its pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s exceeds the Quadro's 6.650 GPixel/s, making it faster at rasterization-heavy tasks. The R7 M360 also has a higher FP32 rating at 864.0 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro's 638.4 GFLOPS, and it supports FP16 at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro does not list at all.

In terms of API support, the R7 M360 is clearly the more future-proof option. DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170 support means the AMD card can run modern games and applications that may not work on the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0) and no-Vulkan configuration. The R7 M360 also supports OpenGL 4.6, matching the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GF104 (NVIDIA) vs Meso (AMD)
• Architecture: Fermi vs GCN 3.0
• Process Node: 40 nm vs 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,950 million vs 1,550 million
• Die Size: 332 mm² vs 125 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² vs 12.4M / mm²
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 80.00 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: 336 vs 384
• TMUs: 56 vs 24
• ROPs: 32 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 6.650 GPixel/s vs 9.000 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 26.60 GTexel/s vs 27.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 638.4 GFLOPS vs 864.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 100 W vs not listed
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan Support: Not listed vs 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2011-02-21 vs 2015-05-04

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 against the AMD Radeon R7 M360's 4638. The delta of 12.4% is significant and reflects the Quadro's massive memory bandwidth advantage. With 80.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, the Quadro can feed its compute units far more efficiently, which is critical for OpenCL workloads that often stress memory throughput.

However, the R7 M360 shows competitive performance in other metrics. Its texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s is marginally higher than the Quadro's 26.60 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is substantially higher. The R7 M360 also delivers more raw FP32 compute power. These advantages do not translate into an OpenCL win because that particular benchmark appears to favor memory bandwidth.

When placed in context with their nearest rivals, both GPUs are in a similar performance neighborhood. The Quadro's closest rival, the GeForce GTX 760M, scores only 0.5% higher, while the R7 M360's closest rival, the Radeon R7 M265, is essentially tied. The Quadro's 30th percentile and the R7 M360's 29th percentile confirm they are in the same performance class, despite the 12.4% head-to-head difference.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the pick for compute-heavy tasks that rely on memory bandwidth. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is over five times the R7 M360's, and this directly drives its 12.4% OpenCL advantage. The Quadro also has a higher transistor count and a much wider 256-bit memory bus, which are hallmarks of professional-grade silicon. If the workload is OpenCL-based and memory-bound, the Quadro is the clear winner based on the data.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is the better choice for modern application compatibility and pixel-pushing workloads. Its GCN 3.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it functional with newer software that the Quadro cannot run. Its higher pixel rate (9.000 GPixel/s) and FP32 output (864.0 GFLOPS) also suggest better performance in rasterization and general compute if the workload fits within the 64-bit memory bus constraints.

The real deciding factor is the workload type. For professional CAD, scientific compute, or any task that stresses memory bandwidth, the Quadro's benchmark lead is decisive. For gaming, modern API support, or applications that require Vulkan, the R7 M360 is the only viable option. The data shows two GPUs at the same percentile ranking, but with entirely different strengths. Choose the Quadro for bandwidth, the R7 M360 for compatibility and modern features.