AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5982, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358 on average, sitting in the 31st percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 against the R7 M445's 5358. That is a 27.2% advantage for the Quadro, and it is the only head-to-head test recorded in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Quadro K4000?

A: The nearest rivals by average score are the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, 0.1% behind), the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, 0.2% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.2% ahead). The K4000 sits essentially in a cluster with those parts.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Radeon R7 M445?

A: The nearest rivals are the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370, 0.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, 0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308, 0.9% behind). The R7 M445 leads all of these by less than 1%.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX version?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, with the Quadro at Vulkan 1.2.175 and the R7 M445 at Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M445 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus delivering 32.00 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across almost every measured specification. The Quadro K4000 uses a 192-bit memory bus with 3 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 M445 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5. The bandwidth gap is enormous: 134.8 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s, a factor of more than four. The memory clock also differs, with the Quadro running at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) compared to the R7 M445's 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The compute resources are heavily lopsided. The Quadro packs 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates into a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 51.84 GTexel/s for the Quadro, versus 7.360 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s for the R7 M445. FP32 throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 588.8 GFLOPS for the R7 M445, which also lists FP16 at 588.8 GFLOPS (1:1).

Physical and platform characteristics differ as well. The Quadro is a single-slot card with a 241 mm length (9.5 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches), requiring one 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested power supply. The R7 M445 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no listed dimensions, power connectors, or suggested PSU. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the R7 M445 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the R7 M445 is portable-device dependent. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD; the R7 M445 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K4000 is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK106 chip. The R7 M445 is built on AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Meso chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the Quadro has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a density of 11.5M per mm². The R7 M445 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving a density of 12.4M per mm².

The Quadro belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation and lists its predecessor as Quadro Fermi and successor as Quadro Maxwell. The R7 M445 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M400) generation, with predecessor Solar System and successor Polaris Mobile. The Quadro's TDP is 80 W, while the R7 M445 has no TDP listed. The Quadro's release date is recorded as 2013-02-28, and the R7 M445's as 2016-05-14. Both are end-of-life products.

The API support reflects the different architectures. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R7 M445 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one shared benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K4000 scores 6816, and the Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358. The Quadro wins with a 27.2% delta. This is a decisive margin, consistent with the large differences in shading units, texture units, ROPs, and memory bandwidth. The Quadro's FP32 output of 1,244.2 GFLOPS is more than double the R7 M445's 588.8 GFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth advantage of 134.8 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s is even more pronounced.

The R7 M445's own benchmark profile shows a single score of 5358 in Geekbench OpenCL, with no recorded Metal or Vulkan results. The Quadro, by contrast, has three recorded results: 4166 in Geekbench Metal, 6816 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 6964 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 5982 reflects a spread across those three tests. The R7 M445's average is identical to its OpenCL score since that is its only entry.

The nearest rival data reinforces the gap. The Quadro's closest competitors all score within 0.2% of it, from the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970 (0.2% ahead) to the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.2% behind). The R7 M445's closest rivals are all slightly behind it, with the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 (0.9% behind). The R7 M445 leads its nearest rivals, but the Quadro sits in a much higher-performance tier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy workloads. The Quadro K4000 beats the R7 M445 by 27.2% in Geekbench OpenCL, the only head-to-head test available, and it also holds major advantages in raw specifications: more than double the shading units, triple the ROPs, more than four times the memory bandwidth, and roughly double the FP32 throughput. Its average benchmark score of 5982 is 11.6% higher than the R7 M445's 5358, and its 34th percentile placement versus the 31st percentile confirms the ranking.

The R7 M445 is not without its own strengths, but they are not compute strengths. It offers 4 GB of memory versus 3 GB, a newer DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level, and a smaller die with higher transistor density (12.4M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²). It also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which is newer than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16. However, none of these translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Users who need maximum compute performance, high memory bandwidth, or a workstation-class display output configuration should choose the Quadro K4000. Users who prioritize a more modern feature set, larger memory capacity, or a portable-device integrated form factor should consider the R7 M445, but they must accept a significant performance deficit in OpenCL compute.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins on: Raw compute performance, with a 27.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Memory bandwidth, at 134.8 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s. Pixel and texture throughput, at 12.96 GPixel/s and 51.84 GTexel/s versus 7.360 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute, at 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS. It also has a higher average benchmark score (5982 versus 5358), a higher percentile ranking (34th versus 31st), and a broader benchmark suite with recorded Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan results. Its single-slot design with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs suits a fixed workstation setup, and its 80 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU is modest for the performance class.

AMD Radeon R7 M445 wins on: Memory capacity, with 4 GB versus 3 GB. DirectX feature level, with 12_0 support compared to the Quadro's 11_0. Transistor density, at 12.4M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm². The newer PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. Its integrated form factor (IGP) means no power connectors or suggested PSU are required, which suits portable devices. It also leads all four of its nearest rivals by 0.2% to 0.9%, showing it is competitive within its own performance tier, even though that tier is well below the Quadro's.

For compute-bound tasks, the Quadro is the unambiguous choice. For a low-power, portable, integrated solution with more memory and a newer API feature level, the R7 M445 fits that niche, but it cannot match the Quadro's measured performance in any shared test.