AMD Radeon R7 M440 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a near-total dead heat in the single available benchmark, yet their underlying architectures and specifications tell a story of two very different engineering approaches. The R7 M440 is a modern, efficiency-focused integrated-class part, while the Quadro 4000M is an older, power-hungry professional mobile module.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5,214 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points. The difference is a razor-thin 0.1% in favor of the AMD part, which records the sole win of the comparison. In practical terms, this is a statistical tie. The data indicates that for general compute workloads measured by OpenCL, users should expect virtually identical performance from these two GPUs, despite their significant generational and architectural differences.

Looking at the broader context provided by their nearest rivals reinforces this picture of equivalence. The R7 M440 has an average benchmark score of 5,483, placing it just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467) and 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 765M (5,501). The Quadro 4000M’s average score of 5,211 puts it 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154). Both cards sit firmly in the same performance tier, with the R7 M440 holding a slight overall edge in the aggregated data. The AMD part’s average of 5,483 is about 5.2% higher than the Quadro 4000M’s 5,211, a gap that is noticeable but not transformative.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two is stark. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, uses a chip codenamed Meso, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture, employs the GF104 chip, and is built on a much older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process node difference is a key factor in their disparate power and thermal profiles.

The transistor counts and die sizes highlight the efficiency gains of newer manufacturing. The AMD GPU integrates 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA part, by comparison, packs 1,950 million transistors onto a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 5.9 million per mm². This means the AMD chip is more compact and denser, while the NVIDIA chip is physically larger and less efficient in terms of space.

Memory architecture is another major point of divergence. The R7 M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro 4000M, despite being older, uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a much wider 256-bit bus, providing a substantially higher bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. This represents a 5.5x advantage in memory bandwidth for the NVIDIA card, which is crucial for certain workloads.

The feature sets also differ. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card’s support is more limited, with DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan support listed. This gives the AMD GPU a modern API advantage, particularly for Vulkan-based applications. The R7 M440 also has a faster memory clock at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) versus the Quadro 4000M’s 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), though the Quadro’s wider bus compensates for this in overall bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests a nuanced split in use cases. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 wins on modern feature support and efficiency. Its 28 nm process node, smaller die size, and IGP form factor suggest it is designed for thin, light laptops where power consumption and heat generation are critical. Its support for Vulkan 1.2 and DirectX 12 (12_0) makes it more future-proof for modern game titles and compute APIs that leverage these interfaces. Its higher transistor density (12.4M / mm²) indicates a more modern design that can pack more functionality into a smaller space.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins decisively on raw memory bandwidth and texture throughput. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage over the AMD part’s 14.40 GB/s, a gap that would be significant in applications that are memory-bandwidth bound, such as high-resolution texture streaming or certain scientific compute tasks. The Quadro also has more texture mapping units (56 vs. 20) and more ROPs (32 vs. 8), leading to a higher texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s compared to the R7 M440’s 17.82 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card also has more shading units (336 vs. 320), giving it a slightly higher theoretical FP32 performance of 638.4 GFLOPS versus 570.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part.

The Quadro 4000M’s professional lineage is evident in its MXM Module slot width and 100 W TDP, suggesting it was designed for larger, more powerful mobile workstations. Its pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s is slightly lower than the AMD's 7.128 GPixel/s, but the overall throughput characteristics lean toward NVIDIA for texture-heavy and bandwidth-intensive tasks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The process node is a clear split: 28 nm for AMD versus 40 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor counts also differ, with the NVIDIA GF104 containing 1,950 million transistors versus 1,550 million for the AMD Meso. Die size is a major differentiator, with the NVIDIA chip being nearly three times larger at 332 mm² compared to 125 mm². This leads to a transistor density of 12.4M / mm² for AMD and 5.9M / mm² for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The AMD R7 M440 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 900 MHz for AMD versus 625 MHz for NVIDIA. The shading units count is 320 for AMD and 336 for NVIDIA, while TMUs are 20 vs. 56, and ROPs are 8 vs. 32. The NVIDIA card has a higher texture rate (26.60 GTexel/s vs. 17.82 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 performance (638.4 GFLOPS vs. 570.2 GFLOPS), but the AMD card has a slightly higher pixel rate (7.128 GPixel/s vs. 6.650 GPixel/s).

The TDP is a major difference: the R7 M440 has no listed TDP and is an IGP, while the Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP and is an MXM Module with no power connectors. The bus interface also differs, with the AMD part using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the NVIDIA part using MXM-B (3.0). In terms of APIs, the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA card only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan. The release dates are separated by over five years, with the AMD card launching in 2016 and the NVIDIA card in 2011.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance based on the FP32 metric?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a higher theoretical FP32 performance of 638.4 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M440's 570.2 GFLOPS. This is a 12% advantage for the NVIDIA part in raw shader math.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a massive bandwidth advantage with 80.00 GB/s, which is over 5.5 times higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M440's 14.40 GB/s. This is due to the NVIDIA card's wider 256-bit bus and use of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R7 M440 supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.170 listed. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5,214 points, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points. The AMD part is ahead by only 0.1%, making the results essentially identical.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is an IGP with no specified TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP. The AMD part's smaller die (125 mm² vs. 332 mm²) and newer 28 nm process node suggest significantly lower power consumption.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare to their respective rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440's average score of 5,483 puts it 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's average score of 5,211 puts it 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two distinct products that happen to perform similarly in one test. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is the more modern, efficient, and feature-complete part. Its support for Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_0) makes it the better choice for modern software environments, and its IGP form factor and smaller manufacturing process indicate it is suited for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount. Its overall average benchmark score is also higher, at 5,483 versus 5,211.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, despite its age, retains a clear advantage in memory bandwidth and texture throughput. The 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is a huge asset for applications that move large amounts of data, and its higher number of TMUs (56 vs. 20) and ROPs (32 vs. 8) make it a stronger candidate for texture-heavy workloads. Its 100 W TDP and MXM Module form factor indicate it was built for larger, more powerful mobile workstations.

For users prioritizing modern API support, lower power draw, and a slight edge in overall average performance, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 is the logical choice. For workloads that are heavily dependent on memory bandwidth and texture fill rates, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, despite being older, offers a compelling hardware profile. The choice hinges on the specific application: modern, API-flexible computing favors AMD, while legacy, bandwidth-intensive tasks may still benefit from the NVIDIA part. The Geekbench OpenCL tie suggests that for general compute, users are unlikely to notice a difference, making the architectural and feature-based distinctions the deciding factors.