AMD Radeon R7 M465 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and AMD Radeon R7 M465 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent very different design philosophies and eras. The Quadro K4000M is a professional-grade part from 2012, built on the large GK104 chip with a 256-bit memory bus, while the Radeon R7 M465 is a 2016 mainstream part using the smaller Topaz chip with a 64-bit bus. Benchmark data shows them landing close together in raw compute scores, yet their architectural and specification differences tell a deeper story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 against the AMD Radeon R7 M465’s 5841. That gives the Quadro K4000M a 2.5% lead—a narrow margin, but consistent across the single test. The delta is small enough that real-world application variance could easily flip the order, yet the data shows a clear winner in this specific workload.

Context from the nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 5986. Its closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987 (0% delta), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% ahead of the K4000M), then the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (−0.2% for the K4000M), and the GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (−0.2%). This clustering within a 0.4% band suggests the K4000M’s OpenCL performance is essentially at parity with a wide range of very different GPUs—from professional workstations to consumer gaming parts.

The Radeon R7 M465, at the 33rd percentile, has an average score of 5841. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M435 at 5859 (−0.3% for the M465), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 (−1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5731 (1.9% ahead of the M465), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (−1.9%). Notice the spread: the M465 trails the UHD 730 and HD 8730M by over 1.5%, but beats the GTX 550 Ti by nearly 2%. This wider variance indicates the M465’s performance is less stable relative to its peers than the K4000M’s.

Interpreting the head-to-head delta of 2.5% requires caution. The K4000M’s advantage could stem from its wider 256-bit memory bus (89.60 GB/s vs. 36.00 GB/s) or its higher pixel rate (12.02 GPixel/s vs. 8.192 GPixel/s). But the M465 counters with a much higher boost clock (1024 MHz vs. 601 MHz) and a more modern architecture (GCN 3.0 vs. Kepler). The data alone cannot isolate which factor drives the lead; it only shows that the K4000M wins this particular OpenCL test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841. The K4000M wins by 2.5%.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000M compare to its closest rival, the AMD FirePro W4100?

A: The FirePro W4100 scores 5987, which is 0% different from the K4000M’s 5986. They are effectively tied in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the Radeon R7 M465’s position relative to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti?

A: The GTX 550 Ti scores 5731, which is 1.9% lower than the M465’s 5841. The M465 holds a clear advantage over that older desktop card.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M465 support a newer DirectX version?

A: Yes, the M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This indicates the M465 has a more feature-complete DX12 implementation.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M465 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Radeon R7 M465 has a transistor density of 12.4M per mm², slightly higher than the Quadro K4000M’s 12.0M per mm², despite the K4000M having more total transistors (3,540 million vs. 1,550 million).

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K4000M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, built on the GK104 chip at TSMC’s 28 nm node. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The K4000M features 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its base and boost clocks are identical at 601 MHz, which is unusual—there is no dynamic clock headroom. The memory runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), delivering 89.60 GB/s over a 256-bit interface.

The Radeon R7 M465 uses AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Topaz chip, also at TSMC’s 28 nm node. It has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, resulting in a slightly higher transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The M465 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs—a fraction of the K4000M’s resources. Its base clock is 730 MHz, boosting to 1024 MHz, which gives it a substantial clock advantage. Memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) over a 64-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 36.00 GB/s.

The architectural gulf is enormous. The K4000M has 2.5× the shading units, 3.33× the TMUs, and 4× the ROPs of the M465. Yet the M465’s higher clocks (up to 1024 MHz vs. 601 MHz) and newer GCN design partially compensate. The K4000M also supports a wider memory bus, but the M465’s faster effective memory speed (4.5 Gbps vs. 2.8 Gbps) narrows the bandwidth gap—though not enough to close it. In terms of feature support, the M465 offers DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K4000M has DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The die size difference is stark: 294 mm² for the K4000M versus 125 mm² for the M465. This reflects the K4000M’s professional positioning—more silicon for more parallel units—while the M465 is a lean, power-efficient mainstream part. The K4000M’s TDP is listed at 100 W with an MXM Module slot width, while the M465 has no TDP or slot width listed, suggesting it was designed for thinner, lower-power notebooks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. Process node is identical (28 nm, TSMC), but transistors differ: 3,540 million for the K4000M versus 1,550 million for the M465. Die size is 294 mm² versus 125 mm². Base clock is 601 MHz for the K4000M versus 730 MHz for the M465, and boost clock is 601 MHz versus 1024 MHz. Memory size is 4 GB versus 2 GB. Memory bus width is 256 bit versus 64 bit. Memory bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s. Effective memory speed is 2.8 Gbps versus 4.5 Gbps.

Shading units number 960 versus 384, TMUs 80 versus 24, ROPs 32 versus 8. Pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s versus 8.192 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 24.58 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS. The M465 also lists FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while the K4000M has no FP16 data. TDP is 100 W for the K4000M, with the M465’s TDP unlisted. Bus interface differs: MXM-B (3.0) for the K4000M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the M465. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the K4000M and null for the M465. Release dates are 2012-05-31 for the K4000M versus 2016-05-14 for the M465.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it does so with a 2.5% margin. Its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput (1,153.9 GFLOPS vs. 786.4 GFLOPS) suggest it should dominate in compute-heavy tasks, yet the OpenCL score shows only a modest lead. This implies the M465’s newer architecture and higher clocks close much of the theoretical gap. The K4000M’s 4 GB memory and 256-bit bus make it better suited for large datasets, while the M465’s 2 GB and 64-bit bus limit its capacity for such workloads.

For users prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL, the K4000M is the safer pick based on the 2.5% lead. However, the M465 offers DirectX 12 (12_0) support, which the K4000M lacks, making it more future-proof for gaming or DirectX-oriented applications. The K4000M’s 100 W TDP suggests it requires more power, though the M465’s TDP is unlisted, so no direct comparison is possible. There is no launch MSRP for either, so cost cannot factor into this analysis.

The M465’s higher boost clock (1024 MHz vs. 601 MHz) and smaller die (125 mm² vs. 294 mm²) indicate a more efficient design, but efficiency does not show up in the benchmark score. The K4000M’s larger memory bus and bandwidth (89.60 GB/s vs. 36.00 GB/s) are decisive for memory-bound tasks. The verdict depends on the workload: compute-heavy, memory-intensive professional tasks favor the K4000M; modern API compatibility and lower power draw favor the M465.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins in scenarios that demand memory bandwidth and parallel throughput. Its 89.60 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus are more than double the M465’s 36.00 GB/s and 64-bit bus. The K4000M’s 960 shading units and 32 ROPs provide higher pixel rate (12.02 GPixel/s vs. 8.192 GPixel/s) and texture rate (48.08 GTexel/s vs. 24.58 GTexel/s). Its FP32 output of 1,153.9 GFLOPS exceeds the M465’s 786.4 GFLOPS by 46.7%. For OpenCL compute, the K4000M’s 5986 score beats the M465’s 5841. It also has 4 GB of memory, double the M465’s 2 GB, which matters for holding larger working sets. The K4000M’s MXM-B (3.0) interface and 100 W TDP suggest it was built for professional mobile workstations, where sustained performance outweighs battery life.

AMD Radeon R7 M465 wins in scenarios that reward modern API support and clock speed. Its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a full version ahead of the K4000M’s 12 (11_0), making it better for newer games and applications that leverage DX12 features. The M465’s boost clock of 1024 MHz is 70% higher than the K4000M’s 601 MHz, which can help with latency-sensitive tasks. Its smaller die (125 mm² vs. 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,550 million vs. 3,540 million) imply lower manufacturing complexity, though TDP is unlisted. The M465’s FP16 capability (786.4 GFLOPS 1:1) is absent from the K4000M’s spec sheet, giving it an edge in workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is more modern than the K4000M’s MXM-B (3.0), though the practical impact depends on the host system. The M465 also has a slight transistor density advantage (12.4M per mm² vs. 12.0M per mm²), indicating a more compact design.

The benchmark data shows the K4000M winning the only direct test, but the M465’s architectural advantages in clock speed and API support mean it could win in workloads not captured by Geekbench OpenCL. Users prioritizing compute density and memory capacity should choose the K4000M; those needing modern feature sets and higher clocks should consider the M465. The 2.5% score difference is small enough that application-specific drivers and optimizations could reverse the order.