AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile and entry-level desktop parts. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 takes the only direct head-to-head comparison available, scoring 5358 in Geekbench OpenCL against the NVIDIA Quadro P400's 4249, a 26.1% advantage. That single win places the R7 M445 in a surprisingly strong position for compute-oriented workloads, at least when measured through OpenCL.

However, the Quadro P400 counters with a second data point that the AMD part simply does not have recorded: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119. This matters because Vulkan represents a different API path, one that often favors architectures with lower overhead and better driver optimization for modern graphics workloads. The absence of a Vulkan score for the R7 M445 means the database cannot confirm whether AMD's OpenCL lead carries over to that API, leaving a meaningful gap in the comparison.

Looking at percentile rankings, the R7 M445 sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P400 sits at the 27th. The average benchmark score, which for the Quadro P400 combines its OpenCL and Vulkan results into 4684, still trails the R7 M445's single-score average of 5358. The data suggests the AMD part wins on raw compute throughput in at least one major API, while the NVIDIA part offers a broader API footprint with a Vulkan result that is 20.5% higher than its own OpenCL score.

For use-case interpretation, the R7 M445 appears better suited for OpenCL-accelerated tasks such as video encoding, physics simulation, or any compute pipeline that relies on that API. The Quadro P400, despite losing the OpenCL contest, demonstrates Vulkan capability that the AMD part does not record, hinting at stronger compatibility for Vulkan-based renderers or game engines. The Quadro's professional branding and display outputs, which include 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, further suggest it targets multi-monitor workstation setups, while the R7 M445's "Portable Device Dependent" outputs tie it to laptops where display connectivity varies by design.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD's R7 M445 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is an older, larger process node that packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The GCN 3.0 design prioritizes raw compute throughput with a wide shading array, which helps explain its OpenCL advantage.

NVIDIA's Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip on Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This newer node fits 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, more than doubling the transistor density to 25.0 million per square millimeter. Pascal's design philosophy emphasizes efficiency and higher clock speeds, which shows in the clock data: the Quadro P400 runs at 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost, compared to the R7 M445's 780 MHz base and 920 MHz boost. That clock advantage is substantial, roughly 57% higher at base and 36% higher at boost.

The shading resources tell a different story. The R7 M445 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Quadro P400 has fewer shading units at 256, fewer TMUs at 16, but double the ROPs at 16. This means NVIDIA dedicates more silicon to pixel output and final framebuffer operations, while AMD spreads its resources across a wider compute array. The pixel rate reflects this: the Quadro P400 achieves 20.03 GPixel/s versus the R7 M445's 7.36 GPixel/s, a 172% difference. Texture rate is closer, with the Quadro at 20.03 GTexel/s versus the R7 M445's 18.40 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute, the standard measure for single-precision floating point, actually favors the Quadro P400 at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS, despite its fewer shading units. The higher clocks overcome the narrower core count. FP16 performance diverges dramatically: the R7 M445 runs FP16 at the same 588.8 GFLOPS as FP32, while the Quadro P400 drops to 10.02 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio. This makes the AMD part far more capable for half-precision compute workloads.

Memory architecture shows both parts using 64-bit buses and GDDR5, but with different capacities. The R7 M445 has 4 GB, the Quadro P400 has 2 GB. Bandwidth is nearly identical: 32.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s, with memory clocks at 1000 MHz and 1002 MHz respectively, both effective 4 Gbps. The capacity difference matters for large datasets, but the bandwidth parity means neither has a throughput advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 26.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P400's 4249 in the same test.

Q: Does the Quadro P400 support any API that the R7 M445 does not have recorded results for?

A: Yes, the Quadro P400 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119, while the R7 M445 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: How do their pixel processing capabilities compare?

A: The Quadro P400 has a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, which is roughly 2.7 times higher than the R7 M445's 7.36 GPixel/s. This comes from the Quadro having 16 ROPs versus the R7 M445's 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and does it affect bandwidth?

A: The R7 M445 has 4 GB of GDDR5, double the Quadro P400's 2 GB. However, bandwidth is nearly identical: 32.00 GB/s for AMD versus 32.06 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the FP16 compute capability difference?

A: The R7 M445 delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP16 performance, equal to its FP32 rate. The Quadro P400 manages only 10.02 GFLOPS of FP16, a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32.

Q: How do their transistor counts and process nodes differ?

A: The Quadro P400 uses a 14 nm Samsung process with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The R7 M445 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node: 28 nm for AMD versus 14 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 1,550 million versus 3,300 million. Die size: 125 mm² versus 132 mm². Transistor density: 12.4M per mm² versus 25.0M per mm². Base clock: 780 MHz versus 1228 MHz. Boost clock: 920 MHz versus 1252 MHz.

Shading units: 320 versus 256. TMUs: 20 versus 16. ROPs: 8 versus 16. Pixel rate: 7.36 GPixel/s versus 20.03 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s. FP32: 588.8 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS. FP16: 588.8 GFLOPS versus 10.02 GFLOPS.

Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB. Memory clock: 1000 MHz versus 1002 MHz. Bandwidth: 32.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: "Portable Device Dependent" versus 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. TDP: not recorded for AMD versus 30 W for NVIDIA. Slot width: IGP versus Single-slot. Power connectors: not recorded versus None. Suggested PSU: not recorded versus 200 W. Dimensions: not recorded versus 150 mm length, 69 mm height.

API support differs as well: DirectX 12 (12_0) for AMD versus 12 (12_1) for NVIDIA. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Vulkan: 1.2.170 for AMD versus 1.4 for NVIDIA. Release dates: 2016-05-14 for the R7 M445, 2017-02-06 for the Quadro P400. Both are end-of-life. Predecessors: "Solar System" for AMD, "Quadro Maxwell" for NVIDIA. Successors: "Polaris Mobile" for AMD, "Quadro Volta" for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 M445 wins decisively. Its score of 5358 beats the Quadro P400's 4249 by 26.1%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial gap that places the R7 M445 in a different performance tier for OpenCL compute. The nearest rivals to the R7 M445, which include the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322, and the GeForce 930A at 5317, all cluster within about 1% of the AMD part. The Quadro P400's OpenCL score of 4249 sits well below that cluster, closer to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and Radeon R5 M320, both at 4657.

The Quadro P400's Vulkan score of 5119, while not a direct head-to-head against the R7 M445, provides context. If the R7 M445 were to achieve a similar Vulkan result, it would likely land near the Quadro's performance. But the data does not record that, so the comparison remains incomplete. The Quadro's average benchmark score across its two tests is 4684, which is 12.6% below the R7 M445's average of 5358. Even including its stronger Vulkan result, the Quadro cannot catch up to the AMD part's average.

The wins tally favors AMD at 1 win versus 0 for NVIDIA in direct head-to-head tests. But the Quadro's additional Vulkan data point suggests that NVIDIA's part has capabilities the AMD part cannot currently demonstrate. The pixel rate difference is the most striking architectural gap: 20.03 GPixel/s versus 7.36 GPixel/s. For tasks that rely on fill rate, such as high-resolution 2D compositing or certain post-processing effects, the Quadro P400 would be expected to outperform significantly, despite losing the compute benchmark.

The Verdict

The data paints a dual picture. For OpenCL compute workloads, the AMD Radeon R7 M445 is clearly the stronger part, delivering 26.1% higher performance than the Quadro P400. Its larger 4 GB memory capacity and full-rate FP16 support (588.8 GFLOPS, equal to its FP32 rate) make it more versatile for compute tasks that benefit from half-precision arithmetic or larger working sets. The R7 M445's 31st percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 27th reinforces this as the higher-performing overall GPU in the database's measurements.

However, the Quadro P400 offers advantages that the raw OpenCL score does not capture. Its Vulkan score of 5119 indicates a modern API path that the R7 M445 lacks entirely in the recorded data. Its pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, nearly triple the AMD part, makes it far better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks. The Quadro also provides 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling multi-monitor professional setups, while the R7 M445's outputs depend entirely on the portable device it is integrated into. The Quadro's 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and 200 W suggested PSU make it a predictable, low-power add-in card.

Who should pick which? Users whose primary workloads are OpenCL compute, machine learning inference with FP16, or tasks needing 4 GB of video memory should favor the R7 M445. Its compute advantage is too large to ignore. Users who need Vulkan compatibility, high pixel throughput, professional display outputs, or a discrete card with known power requirements should choose the Quadro P400. The Quadro also offers better raw FP32 performance at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS, which could matter in applications that use FP32 exclusively and ignore OpenCL benchmarks. The choice ultimately depends on which API and workload profile matches the user's actual usage, as the database records show two capable but differently specialized GPUs.