AMD Radeon R7 M380 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The data presents a clear and dramatic disparity between the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the AMD Radeon R7 M380. The Quadro P4000 is a professional workstation card built on a modern architecture, while the R7 M380 is an older, entry-level mobile GPU. The benchmark results, while limited in scope, show a massive performance gap that defines every aspect of their comparison.

The Verdict

The benchmark evidence points to a single, unambiguous conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is in a completely different performance class. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 points, which is 288.8% higher than the R7 M380's score of 9,313. This is not a marginal difference; it is a near-fourfold advantage that makes the R7 M380 unsuitable for any task where the Quadro P4000's capabilities are required.

The data suggests the Quadro P4000 is the only choice for professional 3D rendering, complex CAD, or scientific compute workloads. Its average benchmark score of 9,665 places it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, which, while not top-tier, is significantly ahead of the R7 M380's 46th percentile. The R7 M380's single benchmark score of 9,313 is its average, indicating it has no other recorded performance data to bolster its case.

For a user seeking a GPU for demanding professional applications, the data implies the R7 M380 would be a severe bottleneck. The Quadro P4000, with its higher transistor count and memory bandwidth, is the only option that can handle the data throughput these tasks require. The R7 M380's performance profile, with its lower scores and older architecture, is more aligned with basic display output or light, legacy 3D acceleration, not modern professional workflows.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by several generations of architectural design. The Quadro P4000 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the R7 M380 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, built on an older and larger 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is a primary driver of the performance gap, allowing the Pascal chip to pack more transistors into a smaller area.

The Quadro P4000's chip, codenamed GP104, contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 22.9 million per mm². The R7 M380's Tropo chip is substantially smaller and less complex, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving it a density of just 12.2 million per mm². This difference in transistor count and density directly translates to a much larger computational core in the Quadro P4000.

The Quadro P4000 features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation units (ROPs). The R7 M380 is far more modest, with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These core specifications explain the raw throughput differences. The Quadro P4000 also supports a higher DirectX version (12_1) compared to the R7 M380's DirectX 12 (11_1), and a newer Vulkan API version (1.4 vs 1.2.170), though both support OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Based on the benchmark data, how much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 than the AMD Radeon R7 M380?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212, which is 288.8% higher than the R7 M380's score of 9,313. This is the only benchmark where both GPUs have recorded results.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth, and what are the implications?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a memory bandwidth of 243.3 GB/s, while the R7 M380 has a bandwidth of only 32.00 GB/s. This massive difference means the Quadro P4000 can feed its GPU cores data far more quickly, which is critical for high-resolution textures and complex compute workloads.

Q: What are the differences in their memory configurations?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the R7 M380 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro P4000's memory is both larger and faster, which is a significant advantage for large datasets and modern game assets.

Q: How do their core counts compare?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The R7 M380 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro P4000 has nearly three times the shading units and four times the ROPs.

Q: Which GPU is more recent, based on the release dates?

A: The Quadro P4000 was released in February 2017, while the R7 M380 was released in May 2015. This two-year gap in release dates is reflected in the architectural and process technology differences.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs show contrasts in nearly every measurable field. The most fundamental difference is the architecture and process node, with the Pascal-based 16 nm Quadro P4000 facing the GCN 1.0-based 28 nm R7 M380.

• Process Node: 16 nm (Quadro P4000) vs 28 nm (R7 M380).
• Transistors: 7,200 million vs 1,500 million.
• Die Size: 314 mm² vs 123 mm².
• Transistor Density: 22.9M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm².
• Base Clock: 1202 MHz vs 900 MHz.
• Boost Clock: 1480 MHz vs 915 MHz.
• Memory Clock: 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) vs 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 4 GB.
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3.
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: 243.3 GB/s vs 32.00 GB/s.
• Shading Units: 1792 vs 640.
• TMUs: 112 vs 40.
• ROPs: 64 vs 16.
• Pixel Rate: 94.72 GPixel/s vs 14.64 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 165.8 GTexel/s vs 36.60 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: 5.304 TFLOPS vs 1,171.2 GFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) vs null.
• TDP: 105 W vs null.
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs null.
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin vs null.
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs null.
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a vs null.
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs 1.2.170.
• Dimensions: 241 mm (9.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height vs null.
• Release Date: 2017-02-05 vs 2015-05-04.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The available head-to-head data is limited to a single test, but it is overwhelmingly conclusive. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 achieves a score of 36,212. The AMD Radeon R7 M380 manages a score of 9,313 in the same test. The delta percentage is a staggering 288.8% in favor of the Quadro P4000.

This result is not surprising given the architectural differences. The Quadro P4000's higher clock speeds, combined with a larger number of cores and vastly superior memory bandwidth, allow it to execute compute workloads at a much faster rate. The R7 M380's score of 9,313 is close to its average benchmark score of 9,313, which is also its only recorded benchmark. This suggests that the R7 M380 has no other performance data to offer a more nuanced comparison. The Quadro P4000's win count stands at 1, while the R7 M380 has 0 wins, reflecting a total dominance in this metric.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins in every measurable category. Its victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test indicates a clear advantage in general-purpose GPU compute tasks. The massive delta of 288.8% suggests that any application leveraging OpenCL for rendering, simulation, or data processing will see a transformative performance increase with the Quadro P4000.

The Quadro P4000's advantages in memory bandwidth (243.3 GB/s vs 32.00 GB/s) and FP32 throughput (5.304 TFLOPS vs 1,171.2 GFLOPS) make it the definitive choice for professional 3D rendering, video editing with heavy effects, and scientific computing. Its larger 8 GB frame buffer also allows it to handle larger textures and datasets than the R7 M380's 4 GB.

The AMD Radeon R7 M380, based on the available data, does not win in any benchmark. Its only potential advantage could be inferred from its lower transistor count and die size, which might suggest a lower power draw. However, the fact pack does not provide a TDP for the R7 M380, so this cannot be confirmed. Therefore, the data indicates that the R7 M380 is only suitable for basic display tasks where the Quadro P4000's performance is unnecessary. For any application that requires computational power, the Quadro P4000 is the only viable option based on these benchmark results.