AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and AMD Radeon R7 M365X are both end-of-life mobile or workstation oriented graphics solutions, but the recorded data shows they serve entirely different performance tiers. The Quadro K4000 wins both shared benchmark tests, with a 14.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a substantial 42.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 5982 places it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R7 M365X averages 5416, sitting at the 32nd percentile. The Quadro K4000 also carries a larger 3 GB memory pool versus 1024 MB, twice the shading units, and higher pixel and texture rates. For any workload that stresses compute, graphics throughput, or modern API performance, the Quadro K4000 is the clear choice from the data. The R7 M365X, however, uses a newer PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and a smaller die, making it a lighter-weight part, but none of its measured strengths overcome the Quadro’s raw performance advantage. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K4000 wins every measured comparison, and the R7 M365X should only be selected if the system requires the newer bus interface or lower transistor count, which the data does not quantify as a performance benefit.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results give the Quadro K4000 two wins out of two head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 6816 against 5939 for the R7 M365X, a 14.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 6964 versus 4893, a 42.3% lead. The R7 M365X does not win any shared test. Looking at the broader database, the Quadro’s average score of 5982 is 566 points higher than the R7’s 5416, roughly a 10.5% overall advantage. The R7 M365X’s closest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 610M (5444, 0.5% behind) and Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370, 0.9% ahead), indicating it sits near integrated graphics performance. The Quadro’s nearest rivals are much closer to its own score: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is 0.1% behind, the AMD FirePro W4100 is 0.1% behind, and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M is 0.2% ahead. This suggests the Quadro K4000 competes in a professional workstation tier, while the R7 M365X is closer to entry-level mobile graphics. The data shows no use case where the R7 M365X outperforms the Quadro K4000. The only areas where the R7 M365X has a technical edge are its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface (versus PCIe 2.0 x16) and a slightly higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²), but neither translates into a benchmark win.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip, built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. The R7 M365X uses the Litho chip, built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, and belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, but the silicon differs significantly. The Quadro packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The R7 M365X has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3M per mm². The Quadro’s die is nearly three times larger in area and carries over 2.6 times the transistor count.

Memory configurations also diverge. The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M365X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The memory clock is 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) on the Quadro versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on the R7. Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Quadro: 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the R7. Pixel rate on the Quadro is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (the Quadro at 11_0, the R7 at 11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.2.175 for Quadro, 1.2.170 for R7). The Quadro’s release date is February 28, 2013, while the R7’s is May 4, 2015. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell; the R7’s predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5982, compared to 5416 for the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, a difference of 566 points.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro K4000 scores 6964 and the R7 M365X scores 4893, giving the Quadro a 42.3% lead.

Q: Does the R7 M365X have more memory than the Quadro K4000?

A: No, the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 M365X has 1024 MB. The Quadro also has a wider 192-bit bus versus 128-bit.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 2,540 million transistors, while the R7 M365X has 950 million. The Quadro’s die is 221 mm² versus 77 mm².

Q: Are both GPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, but the Quadro uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture and the R7 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s, nearly double the R7 M365X’s 6.600 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two shared benchmark tests between these GPUs, and the Quadro K4000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 6816 against 5939 for the R7 M365X. That is a 877-point difference, or 14.8%. This test measures general-purpose compute across the shading units, and the Quadro’s 768 shading units versus 384 helps explain the margin. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 6964, while the R7 M365X scores 4893. The 42.3% delta is the largest in the comparison, reflecting the Quadro’s superior rasterization and driver maturity under a modern graphics API. The Quadro’s Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, while the R7’s Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score. This suggests the R7 M365X’s GCN 1.0 architecture does not scale as well under Vulkan workloads, at least in the recorded data. The Quadro’s average benchmark score of 5982 is also higher than both of its individual scores indicate a balanced profile, though the OpenCL and Vulkan scores are above the average. The R7’s average of 5416 sits between its OpenCL score of 5939 and Vulkan score of 4893, showing a wider spread. Neither GPU has any ray tracing or tensor core tests in the database. The Quadro’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, scores 5986, just 0.1% higher, meaning the desktop K4000 is effectively tied with its mobile counterpart. The R7 M365X’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 610M, scores 5444, which is 0.5% higher than the R7. This places the R7 in a cluster of integrated and low-end discrete GPUs, whereas the Quadro sits among professional workstation parts. The wins are unambiguous: two wins for the Quadro, zero for the R7.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database. Manufacturing: both use TSMC 28 nm, but the Quadro’s chip is GK106 with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the R7’s chip is Litho with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is 11.5M per mm² for Quadro, 12.3M per mm² for R7. Memory: the Quadro has 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective); the R7 has 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Compute units: the Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs; the R7 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS. Power and physical: the Quadro has a TDP of 80 W, is single-slot, requires one 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W; the R7 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or suggested PSU. The Quadro measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the R7 has no recorded dimensions. Bus interface: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, the R7 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, the R7 has none recorded. API support: both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, but the Quadro’s DirectX version is 12 (11_0) and Vulkan is 1.2.175, while the R7’s DirectX is 12 (11_1) and Vulkan is 1.2.170. Release dates: the Quadro launched on February 28, 2013, the R7 on May 4, 2015. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD; the R7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro’s generation is Quadro Kepler (Kx000), the R7’s is Gem System (R7 M300). Predecessors are Quadro Fermi for the Quadro and Solar System for the R7; successors are Quadro Maxwell and Polaris Mobile, respectively. The Quadro has three recorded benchmarks (Geekbench Metal 4166, OpenCL 6816, Vulkan 6964), while the R7 has two (OpenCL 5939, Vulkan 4893). The Quadro’s percentile is 34, the R7’s is 32. The Quadro’s nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of its score, while the R7’s nearest rivals range from 0.5% behind to 1.1% ahead, indicating a less stable competitive position.