AMD Radeon R7 M440 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are two graphics processors from different eras and design philosophies. The R7 M440 is a modern, power-sipping integrated-class part built for mobility, while the Quadro 4000 is a professional workstation card from an older generation. The database records only a single overlapping benchmark, but the specification sheets reveal a story of trade-offs between raw memory bandwidth, compute throughput, and feature support. This analysis walks through the measured performance, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each part holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark recorded for both parts is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5,214 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points. The delta is 4.7% in favor of the AMD part. This is a modest victory, not a decisive one. For context, the R7 M440 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile. Both are squarely in the lower-middle range of overall performance, but the AMD part does hold a measurable edge in this compute workload.

The R7 M440’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 with an average score of 5,467 (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M with 5,501 (0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 with 5,508 (0.5% lower). Its position among these parts shows that its 5,214 OpenCL score is not an outlier; it is competitive with a cluster of similar-performance mobile and professional parts. The Quadro 4000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB with an average score of 4,970 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics with 4,998 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 with 5,018 (0.8% lower). The Quadro 4000 is essentially neck-and-neck with these parts, which reinforces its position as a low-to-mid performer in the modern database.

It is importantly the Quadro 4000 was a professional card with a much higher launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, yet its measured OpenCL performance is 4.7% behind a 2016 mobile part. The data does not support any claim of workstation-class compute superiority for the Quadro 4000 in this specific test. The R7 M440 wins the single head-to-head benchmark, and the database records one win for AMD and zero for NVIDIA. That is the entirety of the measured comparison, so the verdict must lean on this result plus the broader specification differences.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance and modern API support. Its benchmark win is small but real, and its architecture is significantly newer. The Quadro 4000, despite its professional branding and larger memory bus, cannot match the R7 M440 in the recorded test. For users running OpenCL workloads, the data points directly to the AMD part.

However, the Quadro 4000 is not without reason to exist. Its 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory deliver 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than six times the 14.40 GB/s offered by the R7 M440. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the Quadro 4000’s architecture could be more suitable. The R7 M440’s 64-bit bus and DDR3 memory are severe limitations for large data sets. The Quadro 4000 also has a higher pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s versus 7.128 GPixel/s) and more ROPs (32 versus 8), which suggests better fill-rate performance in certain rendering tasks.

The R7 M440 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 4000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no recorded Vulkan support. For modern applications and games, the AMD part is clearly more future-proof. The Quadro 4000’s lack of Vulkan support is a serious drawback for any user planning to run current titles or Vulkan-based compute workloads. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the R7 M440 for compute and modern API compatibility, the Quadro 4000 only for legacy scenarios where its memory bandwidth and fill rate matter more than raw compute scores.

Architecture Differences

The R7 M440 is built on the Meso chip using AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip with NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm means the R7 M440’s transistors are physically smaller and more efficient. The R7 M440 packs 1,550 million transistors into a die size of 125 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The R7 M440’s density is more than double that of the Quadro 4000, a direct result of the newer manufacturing process.

The R7 M440 is part of the Gem System (R7 M400) generation, while the Quadro 4000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. The R7 M440’s predecessor is listed as Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The Quadro 4000’s predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is Quadro Kepler. These lineage notes place the two parts in very different product families: one is a mobile consumer/integrated part, the other is a professional workstation card.

The R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 M440 has more shading units, but the Quadro 4000 has more TMUs and four times the ROPs. The R7 M440’s FP32 throughput is 570.2 GFLOPS, and it also supports FP16 at 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The Quadro 4000’s FP32 throughput is 486.4 GFLOPS, and it has no recorded FP16 support. The R7 M440’s texture rate is 17.82 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000. The pixel rates are close: 7.128 GPixel/s for the R7 M440 and 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000, with the NVIDIA part holding a slight edge.

The R7 M440 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, no recorded TDP, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card with a 142 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Quadro 4000 also lists a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the R7 M440 has no such requirement. The R7 M440’s display outputs are described as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The Quadro 4000 has fixed outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5,214 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979. The R7 M440 leads by 4.7% and is the only winner in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000 support Vulkan, and why does that matter?

A: No, the Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan support. The R7 M440 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. For modern applications, especially games and compute applications using Vulkan, the R7 M440 is the only viable option of the two.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth, and what does that mean?

A: The Quadro 4000 offers 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth thanks to its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory (2 GB capacity at 900 MHz for the R7 M440’s memory clock). The R7 M440 provides only 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 interface with 4 GB capacity. The Quadro 4000’s bandwidth is far higher, which helps in memory-heavy workloads.

Q: What are the process node and die size differences?

A: The R7 M440 uses a 28 nm process with a 125 mm² die and 1,550 million transistors. The Quadro 4000 uses a 40 nm process with a 529 mm² die and 3,100 million transistors. The R7 M440 has a transistor density of 12.4M per mm², while the Quadro 4000 has 5.9M per mm².

Q: Which card has more shading units and which has more ROPs?

A: The R7 M440 has 320 shading units and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units and 32 ROPs. The AMD part has more shading units for compute throughput, while the NVIDIA part has four times the ROPs for fill-rate operations.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The R7 M440 was released on 2016-05-14, while the Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01. The R7 M440 is roughly six years newer, which explains its support for newer APIs and manufacturing process.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 wins in scenarios that depend on raw compute throughput and modern software support. Its FP32 performance of 570.2 GFLOPS is higher than the Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS, and it adds FP16 support at the same rate, which the Quadro 4000 lacks entirely. OpenCL compute workloads, as shown in the benchmark, favor the R7 M440. Its Vulkan support and DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level make it the better choice for any modern application, including games and compute frameworks that rely on these APIs. The R7 M440’s smaller die and newer process node also make it far more practical for mobile and integrated use cases, where its lack of power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs are assets rather than drawbacks.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in scenarios that demand memory bandwidth and fill rate. Its 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth is a massive advantage over the R7 M440’s 14.40 GB/s, which means large textures, high-resolution framebuffers, and data-heavy workloads will run more smoothly on the Quadro 4000 despite its lower compute score. Its 32 ROPs and 7.600 GPixel/s pixel rate outperform the R7 M440’s 8 ROPs and 7.128 GPixel/s, giving it an edge in traditional rasterization tasks that are fill-rate limited. The Quadro 4000’s PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while older, still provides more bandwidth to the host system than the R7 M440’s PCIe 3.0 x8. For legacy professional applications that were optimized for Fermi-era hardware and do not use Vulkan or modern DirectX features, the Quadro 4000 may still be the more functional card.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The R7 M440 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the Quadro 4000 uses GF100 with Fermi. Process nodes are 28 nm for the R7 M440 and 40 nm for the Quadro 4000. Transistor counts are 1,550 million versus 3,100 million, and die sizes are 125 mm² versus 529 mm². The R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. FP32 performance is 570.2 GFLOPS for the R7 M440 and 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000, with FP16 only available on the R7 M440. Memory configurations differ sharply: the R7 M440 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M440’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro 4000’s is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Pixel rates favor the R7 M440 (17.82 GTexel/s) over the Quadro 4000 (15.8 GTexel/s for texture rate, with the Quadro 4000 having higher pixel rate at 7.600 GPixel/s versus 7.128 GPixel/s). TDP is not recorded for the R7 M440 but is listed as 142 W for the Quadro 4000, which is also a single-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M440 and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 4000. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the R7 M440, while the Quadro 4000 lists 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort connections. Dimensions are not recorded for the R7 M440, but are 241 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm for the Quadro 4000. The R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.9, and Vulkan 1.2.170; the Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, with Vulkan 1.2.170 recorded for the R7 M440 and no Vulkan for the Quadro 4000. Release dates are 2016-05-14 for the R7 M440 and 2010-11-01 for the Quadro 4000, with the R7 M440 having no launch MSRP and the Quadro 4000 listed at 1,199 USD.