AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M compare to the AMD Radeon R7 M365X in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro K4000M scores 5,986, while the Radeon R7 M365X scores 5,939. That gives the NVIDIA part a 0.8% lead in the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests?

A: The Quadro K4000M has an average score of 5,986, which is the same as its single OpenCL result. The Radeon R7 M365X averages 5,416 across its two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), placing it about 10% behind the Quadro in average terms.

Q: What does the percentile ranking tell us about these two mobile graphics parts?

A: The Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R7 M365X sits at the 32nd percentile. Both are in the lower-mid range of the overall GPU distribution, with the Quadro marginally higher.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M365X support a newer DirectX version than the Quadro?

A: Yes. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and their Vulkan versions are close (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units and 80 TMUs. The Radeon R7 M365X has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. The NVIDIA part has 2.5 times the shading units and over 3 times the TMUs.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production, and when were they released?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K4000M was released on May 31, 2012, and the Radeon R7 M365X was released on May 4, 2015.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different eras of mobile computing. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the Litho chip based on GCN 1.0, also manufactured by TSMC on 28 nm. Both share the same process node, but the internal designs diverge substantially.

The Quadro K4000M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R7 M365X is much smaller: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is nearly four times larger in die area and holds over 3.7 times as many transistors.

Core configuration differences are stark. The Quadro has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Radeon has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA part a major advantage in raw shader throughput and texture fill. The Radeon's smaller core count is typical of a lower-tier mobile part, while the Quadro is a more fully featured professional mobile GPU.

Memory architecture also differs. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon uses 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The Quadro has double the memory bus width and roughly 40% more memory bandwidth.

Both chips lack ray tracing and tensor cores. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a slightly newer DirectX feature level, but the difference is minor for most workloads.

The bus interface differs: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), a modular mobile form factor, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for the Quadro, with no listing for the Radeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986, and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5,939. The Quadro wins by 0.8%, a narrow margin that falls within typical run-to-run variation for mobile GPUs.

Looking at the Quadro's nearest rivals in the database, the picture clarifies. The Quadro K4000M scores essentially identically to the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987, delta 0%), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982, delta 0.1%), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996, delta -0.2%). It also lands close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, delta -0.2%). This cluster of scores around 5,980 to 6,000 suggests the Quadro K4000M is performing exactly where its architecture and specifications would predict.

The Radeon R7 M365X has a different rival landscape. Its average score of 5,416 places it near the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444, delta -0.5%), the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5,370, delta 0.9%), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467, delta -0.9%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5,358, delta 1.1%). The Radeon R7 M365X sits in the middle of this group, trading places with integrated and entry-level discrete parts.

The Radeon also has a Vulkan benchmark result: 4,893. There is no comparable Vulkan score for the Quadro in the database, so a cross-API comparison is not possible. The OpenCL margin of 0.8% is the only direct head-to-head data point, and it favors the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable field. The Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, while the Radeon R7 M365X uses the Litho chip with GCN 1.0. Both are 28 nm parts from TSMC, but the similarities end there.

Transistor counts and die sizes diverge sharply: the Quadro has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Radeon has 950 million on 77 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical (12.0 vs 12.3 million per mm²), reflecting the same process generation.

Clock speeds differ in what is recorded. The Quadro has a base clock of 601 MHz and a boost clock of 601 MHz (no dynamic boost). The Radeon lists no base or boost clock in the database. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective, while the Radeon runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The Radeon has faster memory clock speed, but the Quadro compensates with a wider bus.

Memory capacity and bus width are major differentiators. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts are not directly comparable, but the shading unit, TMU, and ROP counts are: 960/80/32 for the Quadro versus 384/24/8 for the Radeon. Pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 6.600 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS.

The Quadro has a listed TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors. The Radeon has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data listed. The Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0) bus interface; the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support differs slightly: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Release dates are roughly three years apart: May 31, 2012 for the Quadro, May 4, 2015 for the Radeon. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. The Radeon's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 0.8%. That is a slim margin, but it is a consistent result across the database's measurements. The Quadro also wins on every raw compute specification: FP32 throughput (1,153.9 vs 633.6 GFLOPS), texture rate (48.08 vs 19.80 GTexel/s), pixel rate (12.02 vs 6.600 GPixel/s), memory bandwidth (89.60 vs 64.00 GB/s), and memory capacity (4 GB vs 1 GB).

The Quadro's advantage in shading units (960 vs 384) and ROPs (32 vs 8) makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, especially those that scale with shader count. Its 256-bit memory bus and 4 GB frame buffer also make it better suited for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures that exceed 1 GB of VRAM.

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins on none of the recorded benchmarks, but it does have two advantages in the specification sheet. First, it has a higher effective memory clock (4 Gbps vs 2.8 Gbps), though the Quadro's wider bus more than compensates in total bandwidth. Second, it supports a slightly newer DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)), which could matter for specific API-level features in some applications.

The Radeon also has a recorded Vulkan score of 4,893, a test the Quadro did not run. That result cannot be directly compared, but it shows the Radeon is capable in Vulkan workloads. The Radeon's smaller die (77 mm² vs 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million vs 3,540 million) suggest it may draw less power, though the database does not list a TDP for the AMD part to confirm this.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M as the stronger GPU. It wins the single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark by 0.8%, and its specification sheet shows overwhelming advantages in shader count, texture units, ROPs, memory capacity, memory bus width, and raw compute throughput. The Quadro's FP32 performance of 1,153.9 GFLOPS is nearly double the Radeon's 633.6 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s is more than double the Radeon's 19.80 GTexel/s.

The Radeon R7 M365X is not without merits. It is a much smaller chip with a lower transistor count, which may translate to lower power consumption in thin-and-light laptops, though the database does not list a TDP to confirm. It supports a slightly newer DirectX feature level. Its Vulkan score of 4,893 shows it has some capability in that API. For a user whose primary workload is Vulkan-based and who does not need more than 1 GB of VRAM, the Radeon could be serviceable.

However, for OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro K4000M is the safer choice. Its 34th percentile ranking versus the Radeon's 32nd percentile reflects a small but real overall advantage. The Quadro's 4 GB frame buffer also makes it more future-proof for applications that exceed 1 GB of memory usage, which is common in professional and creative workloads.

The practical verdict: choose the Quadro K4000M for compute-heavy tasks, professional graphics work, or any workload that can use more than 1 GB of VRAM. Choose the Radeon R7 M365X only if you specifically need its Vulkan support, its newer DirectX feature level, or if the smaller chip size matters for your specific laptop configuration. For general-purpose use, the Quadro is the better-performing part in every recorded measurement.