AMD Radeon R7 M465 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000 occupy vastly different tiers of the GPU market, and the benchmark data confirms this immediately. The single head-to-head result is decisive: the Quadro M4000 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 19,118, which is 69.4% higher than the R7 M465’s score of 5,841. This is not a close contest, and the remaining specifications reinforce that gap across every major performance metric.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a landslide. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5,841. The delta of -69.4% for the AMD part means it trails by more than two-thirds, a margin that places them in entirely different performance classes. In practical terms, the Quadro M4000 completes OpenCL workloads nearly three and a half times faster than the R7 M465 based on this score.

Beyond that single test, the broader benchmark suite for the Quadro M4000 shows consistent strength. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,680, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,660. The R7 M465 has no equivalent DirectX or compute results listed, but its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,841 is lower than the Quadro M4000’s Passmark G3D result of 6,680, indicating that the NVIDIA card outperforms the AMD card even when comparing different testing methodologies.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Quadro M4000 has an average score of 5,467 across all its listed benchmarks, while the R7 M465 has an average score of 5,841 from its single test. However, this average is misleading for the Quadro M4000 because it includes several low DirectX-specific scores (e.g., 33 in Passmark DirectX 10 and 26 in Passmark DirectX 12). Its peak performance in OpenCL and Vulkan is far higher, with a Vulkan score of 24,640. The R7 M465 cannot match any of the Quadro M4000’s flagship results.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins in every scenario where raw compute throughput or graphics rendering is required. Its OpenCL score of 19,118 versus 5,841 for the R7 M465 makes it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute. The Quadro M4000 also excels in API-specific workloads, as shown by its Vulkan score of 24,640 and its Passmark DirectX 11 score of 49, which is the highest DirectX result it achieves aside from the legacy DirectX 9 score of 113.

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 does not have a single benchmark win in the head-to-head comparison. Its only advantage is theoretical efficiency, as it consumes no listed TDP while the Quadro M4000 is rated at 120 W. In scenarios where power draw is the absolute priority and performance is secondary, the R7 M465’s lack of a TDP rating suggests it could be used in more power-constrained environments, but the performance penalty is severe.

For professional workflows, the Quadro M4000’s 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the R7 M465’s 2 GB at 36.00 GB/s. This makes the NVIDIA card suitable for large datasets, multi-display setups, or high-resolution textures, while the AMD card would struggle with anything beyond basic tasks. The R7 M465’s only niche is extremely low-intensity workloads where its smaller footprint and unspecified power draw might be acceptable trade-offs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and architectures. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, resulting in a density of 13.1M per mm².

The compute resources are starkly different. The R7 M465 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This explains the massive performance gap: the NVIDIA card has over four times the shading units and more than four times the ROPs. The R7 M465’s pixel rate is 8.192 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 24.58 GTexel/s, while the Quadro M4000 achieves 49.47 GPixel/s and 80.39 GTexel/s, respectively.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The R7 M465 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5 at 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 uses a 256-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR5 at 192.3 GB/s. The clock speeds reflect this too: the R7 M465 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost of 1024 MHz, while the Quadro M4000’s clocks are not listed but its memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The FP32 performance is 786.4 GFLOPS for the R7 M465 versus 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro M4000, a 3.3x advantage for NVIDIA.

API support differs as well. The R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a higher DirectX feature level and a more recent Vulkan version. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5,841, giving NVIDIA a 69.4% advantage.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Quadro M4000 offers 192.3 GB/s across a 256-bit bus, while the R7 M465 provides 36.00 GB/s on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, compared to 384 for the R7 M465, a factor of 4.3x.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: Yes, but the Quadro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M465 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W. The R7 M465 has no TDP listed in the data.

Q: Which card has more ROPs?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 64 ROPs, while the R7 M465 has 8 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior GPU for any performance-oriented task. Its OpenCL score of 19,118 versus 5,841 for the AMD Radeon R7 M465 is a 69.4% lead, and its FP32 compute of 2.573 TFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS is a 3.3x advantage. The Quadro M4000 also has 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, and its bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s is over five times higher than the R7 M465’s 36.00 GB/s. For anyone choosing between these two for rendering, compute, or professional applications, the Quadro M4000 is the only rational pick.

The AMD R7 M465’s only advantage is its unspecified power draw, which is not listed in the data, versus the Quadro M4000’s 120 W TDP. If a system absolutely cannot accommodate a 120 W card, the R7 M465 might be considered, but that comes at the cost of 4x fewer shading units, 8x fewer ROPs, and a fraction of the memory bandwidth. The R7 M465’s percentile rank of 33 versus the Quadro M4000’s 32 is statistically negligible, but the raw scores are not. This is a case where the average benchmark score of the Quadro M4000 (5,467) is dragged down by its low DirectX-specific results, masking its true capability in OpenCL and Vulkan.

For users needing a professional-grade workstation card, the Quadro M4000’s 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, 8 GB memory, and 64 ROPs make it suitable for multi-monitor setups and demanding visual workloads. The R7 M465 lacks listed display outputs and has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, limiting its bandwidth to the CPU. The verdict is simple: choose the Quadro M4000 unless power constraints are absolute, and even then, the performance gap is so large that alternative solutions should be sought.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M465 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Topaz | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 36.00 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1,664 |

| TMUs | 24 | 104 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.192 GPixel/s | 49.47 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.58 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 786.4 GFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | Not listed | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2015-06-28 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Pascal |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The specification table confirms the benchmark results. The Quadro M4000 is a larger, more powerful chip with 3.4x more transistors and a 3.2x larger die. Its memory subsystem is 5.3x faster in bandwidth, and its compute resources are 4.3x higher in shading units. The R7 M465 is a small, low-power chip designed for basic tasks, while the Quadro M4000 is a professional workstation card. There is no overlap in their intended use cases, and the performance data reflects that separation completely.