AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result where the AMD part wins decisively, yet the underlying specifications reveal a more complex story of trade-offs between raw compute, memory capacity, and feature support. The R7 M365X leverages a modern 28 nm process and GCN architecture to achieve higher efficiency, while the Quadro 4000M counters with a larger memory bus and double the VRAM, making the choice highly dependent on the specific workload.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results clearly favor the AMD Radeon R7 M365X in general-purpose compute workloads. In the only directly comparable test, Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M365X scores 5939 points against the Quadro 4000M’s 5211 points, a 14% advantage. This suggests the AMD GPU is better suited for tasks that leverage OpenCL acceleration, such as video encoding, image processing, or physics simulations that run on the GPU.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, despite losing the compute benchmark, holds advantages in other areas that are not captured by the OpenCL score. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory is double the 1 GB found on the R7 M365X, and its 256-bit memory bus provides 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 64.00 GB/s on the AMD part. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound—such as large texture sets in CAD applications or rendering scenes with heavy geometry—the Quadro’s superior memory subsystem could provide a tangible benefit, even if its raw compute throughput is lower.

The AMD part also wins on API support, offering DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the R7 M365X forward-compatible with modern graphics APIs, potentially enabling better performance in newer software titles that utilize these interfaces. The Quadro’s lack of Vulkan support is a significant drawback for any application that relies on this cross-platform API.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This allows for a compact die size of 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is based on the older Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This older node results in a much larger die of 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors, but a lower transistor density of just 5.9M / mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The R7 M365X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000M has fewer shading units at 336, but more TMUs at 56 and more ROPs at 32. This means the NVIDIA part is configured for higher texture fill rates and pixel throughput, while the AMD part has more compute-oriented shader cores. The pixel rates are nearly identical—6.600 GPixel/s for AMD versus 6.650 GPixel/s for NVIDIA—but the texture rates differ, with the Quadro achieving 26.60 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s for the R7 M365X.

Memory architectures also diverge. The AMD GPU uses a 128-bit bus with 1 GB of GDDR5 running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), yielding 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory runs at lower clocks but compensates with a wider bus and double the capacity. The R7 M365X also has a different bus interface, using PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface, reflecting its mobile workstation heritage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5939, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211. This represents a 14% performance advantage for the AMD part. In terms of the overall average benchmark score, the R7 M365X averages 5416 across all its tests, while the Quadro 4000M averages 5211 based on its single test. This puts the AMD GPU at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the Quadro’s 30th percentile.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The R7 M365X’s average score of 5416 is within 1% of several competitors: it trails the AMD Radeon 610M by just 0.5%, leads the Intel UHD Graphics P630 by 0.9%, trails the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 by 0.9%, and leads the AMD Radeon R7 M445 by 1.1%. The Quadro 4000M’s average score of 5211 places it within a similar range: it trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by 0.5%, leads the AMD Radeon R7 M260X by 1%, leads the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M by 1.1%, and trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940M by 1.4%. These narrow margins indicate that both GPUs are clustered in a similar performance tier, with the R7 M365X having a slight edge in compute tasks.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X is the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads that utilize OpenCL. Its 14% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test and its support for modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12 (11_1) make it a more future-proof option for general GPU acceleration. Users running applications that can leverage these newer interfaces would see tangible benefits.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the better option for memory-intensive tasks. Its 2 GB of VRAM and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth provide double the capacity and 25% more bandwidth than the R7 M365X. For workstation applications that load large datasets into GPU memory—such as complex CAD models, large textures, or multi-layer compositing—the Quadro’s memory advantages could outweigh its compute deficit. Its higher texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s also suggests better performance in texture-heavy rendering scenarios.

The data does not support a universal winner. The R7 M365X wins the compute benchmark, but the Quadro 4000M’s memory configuration and pixel/texture rates indicate strengths in other areas. The choice depends on whether the workload is primarily compute-bound or memory-bound. For modern API support and raw OpenCL performance, the AMD part wins. For legacy workstation applications that rely on large memory pools and high memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part holds the advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5939 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M’s score of 5211.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X provides 64.00 GB/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M provides 80.00 GB/s, a 25% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The pixel rates are nearly identical: the AMD Radeon R7 M365X achieves 6.600 GPixel/s, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M achieves 6.650 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M365X | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 336 |

| TMUs | 24 | 56 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 6.650 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 26.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 633.6 GFLOPS | 638.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 100 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | None |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2011-02-21 |