AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD Radeon R7 M365X are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they occupy vastly different tiers of the hardware spectrum. The data reveals a stark contrast in almost every measurable category, from raw compute throughput to memory subsystem design. While both cards share a 28 nm manufacturing process from TSMC, their architectures and intended workloads could not be more different, with the Quadro M4000 delivering dominant performance at a significantly higher hardware cost.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 points, which is 221.9% higher than the Radeon R7 M365X's score of 5,939 points. This represents a more than three-fold advantage for the NVIDIA card in this compute-oriented test.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X averages 5,416. The delta between them is a modest 0.9%, placing them in the same performance percentile of 32 against all GPUs.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth, and by how much?

A: The Quadro M4000 offers 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is exactly three times the 64.00 GB/s provided by the R7 M365X. This is driven by a wider 256-bit bus and faster 6 Gbps effective memory versus the AMD card's 128-bit bus and 4 Gbps effective memory.

Q: What are the differences in the DirectX API support?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This indicates the NVIDIA card has a slightly higher feature level for DirectX 12 workloads.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of transistor count and die size?

A: The Quadro M4000 uses a GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the R7 M365X uses the Litho chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip has a higher transistor density of 13.1M / mm² compared to the AMD's 12.3M / mm².

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units (TMUs)?

A: The Quadro M4000 features 1,664 shading units and 104 TMUs, compared to the R7 M365X which has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. The NVIDIA card also has 64 ROPs versus the AMD card's 8 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architecture gap between these two cards is massive. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, a high-end design aimed at professional workstation tasks. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Litho chip, a small, low-power part intended for entry-level mobile or OEM systems. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

The physical scale of the chips highlights the performance divide. The Quadro M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The R7 M365X is minuscule by comparison, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.3M per mm². This means the NVIDIA chip has over five times the raw transistor count, allowing for a substantially more complex compute pipeline.

Internally, the execution resources tell a similar story. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The R7 M365X has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. This 4.3x difference in shading units and a 13x difference in TMUs suggests the NVIDIA card is designed for heavy, sustained geometry and texture workloads, while the AMD part is more suited to basic display output and light 3D acceleration.

Memory architecture reinforces the gap. The Quadro M4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit interface, clocked at an effective 6 Gbps for a bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s. The R7 M365X has only 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 4 Gbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card also offers a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), which matters for data transfer in professional applications. The API feature sets differ as well, with the Quadro supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior compute and graphics solution. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it outperforms the R7 M365X by 221.9%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, the lead expands to 403.6%. These are not marginal wins; they represent a fundamental difference in processing capability. The Quadro's higher pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s and texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s further solidifies its dominance for any rendering task.

However, the choice is not purely about raw performance. The R7 M365X has a much smaller die (77 mm² vs 398 mm²) and fewer transistors, which implies lower power consumption and thermal output, though no TDP is listed for the AMD card. The Quadro M4000 has a listed TDP of 120 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, suggesting a more substantial power draw. For users with a system that can support a 241 mm, single-slot card with a 300 W suggested PSU, the Quadro M4000 is the clear winner for any intensive workload. For a low-profile, low-power implementation where maximum performance is not the priority, the R7 M365X is the more practical option.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every specification. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the Litho chip with GCN 1.0. The NVIDIA card has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, versus 950 million on a 77 mm² die for the AMD card. Memory differs drastically: the Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 M365X has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The memory clock also differs, with the Quadro running at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and the AMD part at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The execution units are not comparable: the Quadro has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the R7 M365X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA card achieves 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate. The AMD card delivers 633.6 GFLOPS, 6.600 GPixel/s, and 19.80 GTexel/s. The Quadro M4000 has a 120 W TDP, a single-slot design, a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The R7 M365X has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or suggested PSU listed, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Display outputs are listed for the Quadro (4x DisplayPort 1.2) but not for the AMD card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is sparse but decisive. Two Geekbench tests were run on both cards, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 won both. In the OpenCL test, the Quadro scored 19,118 against the R7 M365X's 5,939, a delta of 221.9% in favor of NVIDIA. This test measures general-purpose compute performance, which is critical for tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, and scientific calculations. The massive lead here indicates the Quadro's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth translate directly into real-world compute throughput.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The Quadro M4000 scored 24,640, while the R7 M365X managed just 4,893. This is a 403.6% advantage for NVIDIA. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and this benchmark suggests the Quadro is exceptionally well-suited for modern, high-efficiency rendering pipelines. The fact that the NVIDIA card's score is over five times higher than the AMD card's in this test reinforces the architectural superiority of Maxwell 2.0 for graphics-heavy tasks.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the Quadro M4000, it also posts scores in Passmark tests that the R7 M365X does not have data for, including a G3D score of 6,680 and a GPU compute score of 2,660. The R7 M365X's absence from these tests suggests it may not have been tested in those specific scenarios or that the hardware is not capable of running them effectively.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins in every category where data exists. For professional 3D modeling, CAD, and video editing, the 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 192.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it a far more capable tool. The 8 GB of VRAM allows for larger textures and scenes than the 1 GB on the R7 M365X, which is critical for modern workstation applications. The 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also support multi-monitor professional setups, a feature the AMD card lacks entirely in the spec sheet. If the workload involves any serious rendering, compute, or high-resolution texture work, the Quadro M4000 is the only sensible choice.

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has no benchmark wins in the provided data, but its strengths lie in what is not measured. Its smaller die size of 77 mm² and lower transistor count suggest a much lower power draw, and the absence of a power connector requirement indicates it can be powered entirely by the motherboard's PCIe slot. This makes it suitable for compact, low-power systems where the Quadro's 120 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU would be impractical. For basic display output, office work, and light media playback, the R7 M365X is adequate. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for casual gaming at low resolutions, but it cannot compete with the Quadro's raw muscle in any compute or graphics-intensive scenario. The data is clear: the Quadro M4000 is for work, and the R7 M365X is for basic functionality.