AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M445 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 represent two very different approaches to mobile and workstation graphics, separated by nearly six years of GPU architecture evolution. Despite the Quadro 4000’s professional pedigree, the benchmark data shows the R7 M445 holds a decisive edge in raw compute performance, scoring 5,358 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro’s 4,979. This 7.6% delta is notable given the Quadro’s far larger die, higher power envelope, and dedicated workstation positioning. The R7 M445 sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 trails at the 29th percentile, placing both firmly in the entry-level segment of their respective eras. The data invites a closer look at how architectural choices—not just age—drive these results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 wins the head-to-head benchmark with a score of 5,358, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 4,979. That represents a 7.6% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: How does the R7 M445 compare to its nearest rivals in the benchmark database?

A: The R7 M445 is essentially tied with the Intel UHD Graphics P630, which scores 5,370 and is just 0.2% ahead. It also leads the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322) by 0.7%, the GeForce 930A (5,317) by 0.8%, and the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308) by 0.9%.

Q: What is the performance gap between the Quadro 4000 and its closest competitor?

A: The Quadro 4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, which scores 4,998 and is 0.4% ahead. The Quadro also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970) by 0.2% and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018) by 0.8%, while leading the Radeon R7 M360 (4,931) by 1%.

Q: Which GPU has the wider memory bus and higher bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a 256-bit memory bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 uses a 64-bit bus, delivering just 32.00 GB/s. The Quadro’s bandwidth advantage is more than 2.8 times that of the AMD part.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for these two chips?

A: The Quadro 4000’s GF100 chip contains 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The R7 M445’s Meso chip has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The Quadro packs roughly twice the transistors on a die that is over four times larger.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R7 M445 lists Vulkan support, with version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan API entry in its specifications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 employs the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. The process node gap alone—28 nm versus 40 nm—explains much of the efficiency difference, but the chip designs diverge even further.

The Quadro 4000’s GF100 die is a massive 529 mm², housing 3,100 million transistors. By contrast, the R7 M445’s Meso chip is just 125 mm² with 1,550 million transistors. This yields a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm² for the AMD part versus only 5.9 million per mm² for the NVIDIA chip. The R7 M445 is the denser, more modern design, packing more compute into far less silicon.

Shader configuration also differs significantly. The R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000 counters with 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD part has more shaders but fewer TMUs and ROPs, which points to different workload emphasis—the Quadro’s higher ROP count suggests stronger fill-rate capabilities, while the R7’s shader advantage fuels compute throughput.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The R7 M445 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s. The Quadro’s 2.8x bandwidth advantage is typical of a workstation card designed for texture-heavy professional applications, though it comes at the cost of capacity. The R7 M445’s 4 GB capacity, paired with its smaller bus, favors compute workloads that need more local data but less streaming bandwidth.

Clock behavior underscores the generational difference. The R7 M445 runs at 780 MHz base and 920 MHz boost, with memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Quadro 4000’s core clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The R7’s higher memory clock, combined with its newer process, allows it to achieve competitive compute rates despite the narrow bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results favor the AMD Radeon R7 M445 decisively. The AMD part scores 5,358 against the Quadro 4000’s 4,979, a 7.6% victory. This is a meaningful margin in the entry-level segment, where a 7% lead can shift a GPU from “marginal” to “usable” for certain compute tasks.

The R7 M445’s win is particularly striking given the Quadro’s specifications. The Quadro has 2.8x the memory bandwidth, 4x the ROPs, and 1.6x the TMUs, yet still loses in this OpenCL test. This suggests that the R7 M445’s higher shader count (320 vs. 256) and its GCN 3.0 architecture, with better instruction-level parallelism, are more important for this workload than raw memory throughput. The R7 also benefits from a 920 MHz boost clock, which the Quadro’s specification does not list—perhaps the Fermi part’s clocks were lower, given its 142 W TDP and 40 nm process.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this result. The R7 M445 scores within 0.2% of the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5,370) and beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5,308) by 0.9%. The Quadro 4000, meanwhile, is within 1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4,931) and R5 M430 (5,018), and even trades blows with the modern GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970), which it leads by just 0.2%. That the Quadro can keep pace with a 2025-era GPU in this one test says something about Fermi’s compute fundamentals, but the R7 M445 simply executes the OpenCL workload more efficiently.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals where these two GPUs diverge most sharply. Process node is the headline difference: the R7 M445 uses 28 nm, the Quadro 4000 uses 40 nm. The R7 M445 has 320 shading units versus the Quadro’s 256, and 20 TMUs versus 32. The Quadro counters with 32 ROPs against the R7’s 8, and a 256-bit memory bus versus 64-bit.

Memory capacity and bandwidth tell opposite stories. The R7 M445 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 but only 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 but 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds are listed for the R7 (780 MHz base, 920 MHz boost) but not for the Quadro, though the Quadro’s memory clock is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) versus the R7’s 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The Quadro 4000 is a discrete, single-slot card with a 142 W TDP, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU and a 1x 6-pin power connector. It measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The R7 M445 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs and no power connector listed. The Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, while the R7’s outputs depend entirely on the host laptop.

API support differs in one key area: the R7 M445 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan entry. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the R7’s DirectX 12 feature level is 12_0, while the Quadro’s is 11_0. Release dates are also far apart—the R7 M445 launched in May 2016, the Quadro 4000 in November 2010.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M445 wins the only benchmark where they are directly compared, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 7.6%. This makes it the clear choice for general-purpose compute workloads that rely on shader throughput and modern architecture features. Its 4 GB memory capacity also gives it an advantage for datasets that exceed the Quadro’s 2 GB limit, even if the narrower bus slows data movement. The R7 M445’s Vulkan support opens the door to modern cross-platform graphics APIs that the Quadro cannot access, and its integrated nature means it draws no dedicated power connector, making it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in raw memory bandwidth and fill-rate-oriented tasks. Its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, 32 ROPs, and 32 TMUs make it better suited for texture-heavy rendering, multi-sample anti-aliasing, and pixel-bound workloads. The 256-bit bus is a massive advantage for any application that streams large textures or geometry, and the higher pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s vs. 7.360 GPixel/s) suggests the Quadro can edge out the R7 in pure rasterization. Its workstation heritage, with DVI and DisplayPort outputs, also makes it a drop-in card for legacy professional displays, whereas the R7 M445’s outputs are entirely device-dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. For compute workloads as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M445 is the superior part—its 5,358 score beats the Quadro 4000’s 4,979 by 7.6%, and its 320 shaders and 920 MHz boost clock deliver more raw FLOPs (588.8 GFLOPS vs. 486.4 GFLOPS). The R7 M445 is also the more forward-looking choice, with Vulkan support, DirectX 12_0 features, and a 28 nm process that makes it far more efficient per transistor. It is the pick for anyone running modern compute APIs or needing 4 GB of memory in a portable, integrated package.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the pick for legacy professional environments where memory bandwidth dominates. Its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus are unmatched by the R7 M445, and its 32 ROPs give it a fill-rate advantage that shows up in pixel-heavy workloads. The Quadro’s single-slot, 142 W discrete design with dedicated display outputs makes it a practical upgrade for older workstations, but its 40 nm Fermi architecture and 2 GB memory capacity are dated. The Quadro’s 29th percentile ranking, just two points below the R7 M445, confirms that neither GPU is a performance king—but for the specific tasks each was designed to handle, the data favors the AMD part for compute and the NVIDIA part for bandwidth-bound professional rendering.