AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two legacy GPUs almost evenly, with each card taking one head-to-head victory. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 wins the OpenCL workload, scoring 7063 against the NVIDIA Quadro K4000's 6816, a 3.6% advantage. This suggests the AMD part has a slight edge in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, which often includes applications like video encoding, physics simulations, and certain scientific workloads. The margin is modest, but it is a consistent, measurable lead in that specific API environment.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 counters in the Vulkan workload, scoring 6964 versus 6465 for the AMD Radeon R7 M370, a 7.2% difference. Vulkan is a lower-overhead graphics API that tends to favor architectures with stronger driver optimization and more robust geometry processing. The Quadro's win here is more decisive than AMD's OpenCL victory, indicating that for modern gaming or Vulkan-based rendering tasks, the NVIDIA card holds a clearer performance advantage. This split means the choice between the two depends heavily on the software environment the user intends to run.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the AMD Radeon R7 M370 posts an average of 6764, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 averages 5982. The AMD card sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 34th percentile. Despite the Quadro winning one head-to-head test, the AMD part has a higher overall average across all recorded benchmarks. This discrepancy suggests that the Quadro's Vulkan win is a strong outlier in its favor, but the AMD card is more consistently competitive across a wider range of test conditions, likely because its OpenCL performance is higher and drags up the aggregate score.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Litho, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors into a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the Kepler architecture on the GK106 chip, also built on a 28 nm process at the same foundry, but it scales up to 2,540 million transistors across a 221 mm² die, giving a lower density of 11.5 million per mm². The Quadro is physically much larger and more complex, which explains its higher compute resources.

The shader configuration differs sharply. The AMD part has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA card doubles the shader count to 768, with 64 TMUs and 24 ROPs. This gives the Quadro significantly higher theoretical pixel throughput at 12.96 GPixel/s versus 7.680 GPixel/s for the AMD, and texture fill rate of 51.84 GTexel/s versus 23.04 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating also favors NVIDIA heavily: 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 737.3 GFLOPS. These figures suggest the Quadro has roughly 69% more raw compute horsepower on paper, though real-world benchmark results do not always reflect that full gap due to driver efficiency and workload characteristics.

Memory configurations also tell a story of different target use cases. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 offers 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), resulting in 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro has more than double the memory bandwidth, which is critical for professional workloads that stream large datasets, such as CAD models or high-resolution textures. The AMD card's narrower bus and lower memory clock cap its ability to feed its compute units in memory-bound scenarios.

Connectivity and power profiles diverge as well. The AMD part uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the x8 lane count may reduce peak transfer rates compared to a full x16 link, depending on the workload. The Quadro K4000 has a rated TDP of 80 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The AMD card has no TDP listed in the database, but its smaller die and lower clock speeds imply a more modest power draw. The Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, designed for workstation chassis.

API support is nearly identical, with both cards supporting DirectX 12 (though AMD lists 11_1 and NVIDIA lists 11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (AMD at version 1.2.170, NVIDIA at 1.2.175). The Quadro has a slight edge in the Vulkan version number. The NVIDIA card also supports Metal, scoring 4166 in the Geekbench Metal test, a benchmark that the AMD card does not have recorded. This makes the Quadro a more versatile option for macOS or iOS development environments that rely on Metal. The AMD card's production status is end-of-life, as is the Quadro's, but the AMD card was released in May 2015, while the Quadro came earlier in February 2013.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for different user profiles. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the stronger choice for raw compute density and memory bandwidth. Its 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, combined with 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth, make it architecturally superior for tasks that saturate memory pipelines or require massive parallel throughput. The Vulkan benchmark win confirms this, as it leads by 7.2% over the AMD part. The Quadro also offers 3 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, which matters for larger textures or datasets that exceed the AMD card's capacity. This card is better suited for professional graphics work, rendering, or any compute-heavy application that can leverage its higher theoretical limits.

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 is the better choice for OpenCL-based workloads and for users who want a more balanced overall score. Its 3.6% OpenCL win over the Quadro indicates that in certain compute scenarios, the AMD architecture's scheduling and driver implementation outperform the NVIDIA card despite having fewer shaders and less bandwidth. The AMD part also has a higher average benchmark score of 6764 versus 5982, meaning it performs more consistently across the tests recorded in the database. It also uses a newer PCIe 3.0 interface, which may offer better system-level integration with modern motherboards. For users running OpenCL-heavy applications on a laptop or compact system, the AMD card's profile is more practical.

The user should pick the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 if they prioritize Vulkan performance, require more VRAM, or need the additional compute headroom for professional software that scales with shader count and memory bandwidth. The user should pick the AMD Radeon R7 M370 if they rely on OpenCL acceleration, want a higher average benchmark score, or prefer the newer bus interface. The Quadro's higher MSRP of 1,269 USD reflects its workstation positioning, but the performance data does not always justify that premium in every workload. The AMD card offers a more competitive aggregate performance profile, while the NVIDIA card wins in specific, demanding scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has an average benchmark score of 6764, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 averages 5982. The AMD part also sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro's 34th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 6964, compared to 6465 for the AMD Radeon R7 M370. This is a 7.2% difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has a memory bandwidth of 57.60 GB/s using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth using 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 support the Metal API?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 4166. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 does not have a Metal benchmark score listed in the database.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 M370 has 384. The Quadro also has 64 texture mapping units and 24 ROPs, versus 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the AMD card.

Q: What are the OpenCL scores for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063 in Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6816. The AMD card leads by 3.6% in this specific test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most telling comparison comes from the two recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K4000's 6816 by 3.6%. This result is surprising given the Quadro's much larger die and higher theoretical FP32 rate of 1,244.2 GFLOPS, but the database shows that raw compute resources do not always translate to real-world wins. The AMD GCN architecture appears to handle OpenCL scheduling more efficiently in this test, or the driver implementation for this workload is better optimized. The margin is small, but it is a consistent lead that holds across the recorded run.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6964, while the AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 6465, a 7.2% gap in the Quadro's favor. This is a more substantial difference, and it aligns with the architectural advantage the Quadro holds in geometry processing and memory bandwidth. The Quadro's 768 shading units and 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth likely give it the edge in Vulkan's draw call-heavy workloads. The AMD card's 57.60 GB/s bandwidth becomes a bottleneck in this scenario, limiting its ability to feed its 384 shaders quickly enough to keep pace.

The wins are split one apiece, but the magnitude favors the NVIDIA card. The Quadro's Vulkan victory is nearly double the percentage margin of AMD's OpenCL win. However, the AMD card's higher average score of 6764 versus 5982 suggests that its OpenCL performance is not an isolated fluke; it contributes to a more robust overall profile across the benchmarks recorded in the database. The Quadro's Vulkan win is significant for modern gaming and VR workloads, but the AMD card remains competitive in compute tasks that favor its architecture. For a user who runs a mix of OpenCL and Vulkan applications, the AMD card offers more consistent performance, while the NVIDIA card excels specifically in Vulkan environments.