AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile workstation-class GPUs into distinct roles. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M holds the only head-to-head victory in the recorded tests, taking the Geekbench OpenCL score with 9149 against the AMD Radeon R7 M370’s 7063, a 29.5% advantage. That single win signals where the Quadro’s strengths lie: raw compute throughput in general-purpose workloads that lean on OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 7906 across two tests (Geekbench Metal at 6662 and Geekbench OpenCL at 9149) places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, a notch above the AMD part’s 38th percentile.

The AMD Radeon R7 M370, by contrast, shows a different profile. Its recorded benchmarks include a Geekbench OpenCL score of 7063 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6465, with an average of 6764. It has no head-to-head wins in the database, but the Vulkan result is notable because the Quadro K4100M has no recorded Vulkan score at all. That means in scenarios where Vulkan is the API of choice, the R7 M370 has measurable performance data while the Quadro does not, making the AMD part the only one of the two with a demonstrated Vulkan capability in the measurements. The R7 M370’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6830 (1% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6698 (1% lower), suggesting it sits in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile parts.

For use-case splitting, the Quadro K4100M is the compute-oriented choice when OpenCL workloads dominate, while the Radeon R7 M370 offers a documented path for Vulkan-based applications. The Quadro’s higher average score (7906 vs 6764, a 17% gap) and higher percentile ranking reinforce its overall lead, but the R7 M370’s Vulkan data point gives it a niche that the Quadro cannot claim from the recorded facts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip under the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 M370 uses the Litho chip under GCN 1.0, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with far fewer resources: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3 million per mm². Despite the similar process node, the Quadro’s die is nearly four times larger, reflecting a much more complex implementation.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R7 M370 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 3:1 ratio in shading units and TMUs, and a 4:1 ratio in ROPs. Clock speeds partially compensate: the AMD part runs at a base of 875 MHz with a boost of 960 MHz, while the Quadro is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. Even so, the Quadro’s pixel rate of 16.94 GPixel/s and texture rate of 67.78 GTexel/s dwarf the AMD’s 7.680 GPixel/s and 23.04 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput tells the same story: 1.627 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 737.3 GFLOPS for the Radeon, a 2.2x gap.

Memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The Quadro carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 57.60 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory clock is 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) while the AMD runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), but the wider bus gives NVIDIA a decisive bandwidth advantage. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0) as a mobile module, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro’s TDP is listed at 100 W, while the AMD part has no recorded TDP. API support shows both support DirectX 12 (11_0 for NVIDIA, 11_1 for AMD), OpenGL 4.6 for both, but Vulkan versions differ slightly: 1.2.175 for the Quadro versus 1.2.170 for the Radeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063. That is a 29.5% delta in NVIDIA’s favor, a substantial margin that aligns with the architectural disparity: the Quadro has 3x the shading units, 4x the ROPs, and more than double the FP32 throughput. The OpenCL test stresses raw parallel compute, and the Quadro’s larger silicon simply has more resources to throw at the workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro’s average score of 7906 puts it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7925), 1.7% behind the Quadro P5000 (8039) and GTX 880M (8040), and 1.8% behind the GTX 650 Ti (8053). Those nearest rivals all sit within a 2% band, meaning the Quadro is competitive with a cluster of desktop and high-end mobile parts from its era. The Radeon R7 M370’s average of 6764 places it 1% below the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830), 1% above the GeForce GT 1010 (6698), 2.3% above the Radeon R7 M460 (6612), and 2.6% below the GeForce GTX 675M (6946). The AMD part sits in a lower performance tier overall, with its nearest rivals all scoring below the Quadro’s closest competitors.

The Geekbench OpenCL gap is the headline number: 29.5% is not a marginal difference. It reflects the fundamental resource imbalance, and it is the only head-to-head measurement available. No Vulkan or Metal comparison exists between the two in the database, so the OpenCL result stands as the sole direct evidence of relative performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9149 against the AMD Radeon R7 M370’s 7063, a 29.5% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M370 have any benchmark where it outperforms the Quadro?

A: No. The database records zero head-to-head wins for the AMD part. However, the R7 M370 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6465, while the Quadro has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so the AMD GPU is the only one with documented Vulkan performance.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M averages 7906 across its two recorded tests, while the Radeon R7 M370 averages 6764. The Quadro’s average is roughly 17% higher.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M delivers 102.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5. The Radeon R7 M370 provides 57.60 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5. The Quadro has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: How do their FP32 compute capabilities differ?

A: The Quadro K4100M reaches 1.627 TFLOPS, while the Radeon R7 M370 reaches 737.3 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part has roughly 2.2x the FP32 throughput.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K4100M sits in the 41st percentile, while the Radeon R7 M370 sits in the 38th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner for raw compute performance. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M leads the only direct benchmark by 29.5%, has a higher average score (7906 vs 6764), a higher percentile rank (41st vs 38th), and dominates in every architectural resource category measured: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory bus width, bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. For any workload that leverages OpenCL, the Quadro is the stronger choice based on the recorded numbers.

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 does have one distinguishing feature: a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 6465. The Quadro has no Vulkan benchmark in the database, so if an application relies on Vulkan, the R7 M370 is the only one of the two with proven performance in that API. Its lower average score and 38th percentile ranking, however, place it in a more modest performance class. Its nearest rivals (FirePro M5100, GT 1010, R7 M460, GTX 675M) all cluster within a few percent, indicating it sits in a crowded mid-range tier.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, the Quadro K4100M is for users prioritizing OpenCL compute and maximum throughput, particularly in mobile workstation contexts where its MXM module form factor and 100 W TDP are specified. The Radeon R7 M370 is for users who specifically need Vulkan support and are willing to accept lower overall performance, as evidenced by its 17% lower average score and 29.5% deficit in the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | AMD Radeon R7 M370 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | Litho |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | Gem System (R7 M300) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 875 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 960 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 57.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1152 | 384 |

| TMUs | 96 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.94 GPixel/s | 7.680 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 67.78 GTexel/s | 23.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.627 TFLOPS | 737.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | null |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

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

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 1,499 USD | null |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 7906 | 6764 |

| Percentile | 41 | 38 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 9149 | 7063 |

| Geekbench Metal | 6662 | null |

| Geekbench Vulkan | null | 6465 |