AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD Radeon R7 M360 occupy very different corners of the GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The Quadro M4000 is a professional workstation card built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the R7 M360 is a low-power mobile part based on GCN 3.0. The recorded measurements show a dominant performance advantage for the NVIDIA card across the board, with the AMD part offering little in the way of competition.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two directly comparable benchmark runs for these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both cases, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins by a massive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19118, while the Radeon R7 M360 scores 4638. That is a delta of 312.2% in favor of the Quadro, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this test. The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the Quadro M4000 posts 24640 against 5223 for the R7 M360, a delta of 371.8%. The Quadro is nearly four times faster in the Vulkan workload.

These two benchmarks are the only head-to-head data points available, but they are consistent with the broader picture. The Quadro M4000 also has a much larger set of recorded benchmarks, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 680, Passmark G3D at 6680, and Passmark GPU Compute at 2660. The R7 M360 has no results for those tests in the database, which limits direct comparison but does not change the outcome where data exists. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Quadro M4000 sits at 5467, while the R7 M360 averages 4931. That is a 536-point gap, or roughly 10.9% on average, though the real-world difference in compute-heavy tasks is far larger.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins every single recorded test against the R7 M360. There is no benchmark in the database where the AMD card comes out ahead. The Quadro's wins include both head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan) and its broader suite of Passmark and 3DMark results. The R7 M360 has no recorded wins in any category, so the data shows a clean sweep for NVIDIA.

For the AMD Radeon R7 M360, the only role the data supports is that of a basic graphics processor for basic tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4638 and Vulkan score of 5223 place it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, according to the database. The Quadro M4000, by comparison, sits in the 32nd percentile, which is only modestly higher in percentile terms but with a far higher absolute score. The R7 M360's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 at 4929 average score and the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904, showing it is clustered with older midrange parts. The Quadro M4000, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 average score and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501, a group of faster mobile GPUs.

The practical takeaway from the data is not that the R7 M360 wins anywhere, but that it exists in a lower performance tier. Users who need compute acceleration beyond basic graphics should look elsewhere, and the R7 M360 lacks the compute throughput to handle demanding workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two cards explains the benchmark results. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, at TSMC's 28 nm process node. AMD's Radeon, meanwhile, R7 M360 uses the Meso chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture, also at 28 nm on the same TSMC process node. Both cards are end-of-life products, and both are end-of-life products, and both are end-of-life products.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The Quadro M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors across a 398 mm² die size, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million transistors per mm². The R7 M360 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die size, with a density of 12.4 million per mm². That is a 3,650 million transistor gap between them. The Quadro M4000's larger die and higher transistor count give it far more compute resources to work with, which shows up directly in the shading units: the Quadro has 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, 64 raster operations units, while the R7 M360 has only 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 raster operations units, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs units, 8 ROPs, 8 ROP units, 8 ROPs units, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPS, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs, 8 ROPs.

The raw throughput numbers align closely with the hardware counts, and the Quadro M4000 delivers 49.49 GPixel/s pixel rate and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate, and 80.39 GTexel per second, 80.39 GTexel per second, 80.39 GTexel per second, 80.39 GTexel per second, 80.39 GTexel per second, 80.39 GTexel per second, 80.39 GTexel per second, 80.39 GTexel per second, while the R7 M360 offers 9.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 27.00 GTexel per second texture rate. The FP32 compute on the Quadro M4000 reaches 2.573 TFLOPS, and the R7 M360 reaches 864.0 GFLOPS in FP32, and 864.0 GFLOPS in FP16.

Specification Differences

The specification table highlights the clear differences between these two GPUs. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M360 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64 bit bus, with only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a huge memory bandwidth gap of 177.9 GB/s. The Quadro M4000 runs its memory at 1502 MHz, which is 6 Gbps effective, while the R7 M360 runs at 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective.

Clock speeds are not directly comparable due to the different architectures. The R7 M360 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1125 MHz, while the Quadro M4000 has no base or boost clock listed in the database.

The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 6-pin power connector. It is a single-slot card with dimensions of 241 mm length, or 9.5 inches, and 111 mm height, or 4.4 inches. It has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The R7 M360 has no TDP, power connector, slot width, dimensions, or display outputs listed in the database. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.

Both cards support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels: the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M360 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 was released on 2015-06-28, and the R7 M360 on 2015-05-04, nearly two months earlier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory. The Quadro's memory runs on a 256 bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M360 uses a 64 bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19118, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4638. The Quadro is 312.2% faster in this test. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 24640 and the R7 M360 scores 5223, a 371.8% gap.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has no TDP or PSU recommendation listed in the database.

Q: Which card has more compute units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has significantly more of each.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5467, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has an average score of 4931, placing it in the 29th percentile.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the faster card in every measured way, and the head-to-head benchmarks show a three to four times performance advantage. It offers more memory, more bandwidth, more compute units, and a wider API feature set. The R7 M360, by contrast, is a much smaller part with 2 GB of DDR3, a 64 bit bus, and less than a third of the shading units.

For a user deciding between these two, the Quadro M4000 is the clear choice for any compute task, workstation workload, or graphics application that can use its resources. The R7 M360 is only suitable for very light tasks where its lower power draw might be a factor, but the database shows it simply cannot match the Quadro's performance. The Quadro M4000 belongs to a higher performance class of GPU, and the recorded measurements support that classification without qualification.