AMD Radeon R8 M445DX vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole recorded benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a clear, if modest, win for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M. The Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points against the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX's 4727 points. That is a 10.2% advantage for the older NVIDIA part, a notable margin when the two chips are separated by roughly five years of product cycles.

The delta of 10.2% is meaningful in context. The Quadro 4000M's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, sits at 5236 points, just 0.5% higher. The Quadro 4000M also lands within 1.4% of the GeForce 940M (5284 points) and beats the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161 points) by 1%. In other words, the Quadro 4000M is not merely edging out the R8 M445DX; it is holding its own against a cluster of newer mainstream mobile GPUs that all land within a roughly 2.5% band of each other.

The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, by contrast, sits in a different neighborhood. Its 4727 points place it 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752 points) and 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788 points). Curiously, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684 points) is 0.9% slower, and even the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB appears in its rival list at 4791 points, only 1.3% ahead. That last pairing is an oddity of the database's clustering, but it underscores how tightly packed the R8 M445DX's performance tier is.

The head-to-head table shows only one benchmark, so the aggregate picture is simple: the Quadro 4000M wins 1 test, wins 0 losses for the AMD part, with the total win count reflecting the single Geekbench OpenCL result. No other tests exist in the database for these two specific parts, so there is no data on gaming frame rates, compute workloads like cryptography, or compute-heavy tasks like physics simulation to complicate the picture.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins the only recorded benchmark, which makes its case straightforward in raw OpenCL compute throughput. A 10.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL suggests that the Quadro 4000M handles general-purpose GPU compute workloads, the kind that Geekbench's OpenCL test exercises, with noticeably better efficiency than the AMD part. Its 638.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate provide the underlying hardware muscle for that result, even if the benchmark itself is the only direct evidence.

The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX does not win any recorded test, but its profile points to areas where it could be competitive in unmeasured scenarios. Its pixel rate is higher at 8.168 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000M, a 22.8% advantage in raw fill-rate capability. In theory, fill-rate bound workloads, such as certain pixel-heavy rendering passes, might favor the AMD chip. Its FP32 compute of 653.4 GFLOPS is also marginally higher than the Quadro's 638.4 GFLOPS, a difference of about 2.3%, even though that edge did not translate into a Geekbench OpenCL win.

The R8 M445DX also carries a GCN 3.0 architecture with explicit FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 653.4 GFLOPS in half-precision. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded FP16 figure, which means the AMD part is the only one of the two with a documented half-precision path. For workloads that leverage FP16 arithmetic, the R8 M445DX has a structural advantage that the database does not directly measure.

In practical use-case terms, the Quadro 4000M is the safer pick for OpenCL compute tasks as recorded, while the R8 M445DX appears better positioned for pixel-heavy rendering or FP16-capable applications, with the caveat that no direct benchmark confirms those wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It is part of the Quadro Fermi-M generation (x000M series). The chip packs 1,950 million transistors onto a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². Fermi was designed as a compute-first architecture, and the Quadro 4000M reflects that with 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs.

The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It belongs to the Gem System Hybrid generation under the Rx M400 family. The die is much smaller at 125 mm², but it holds 1,550 million transistors, which translates to a far higher transistor density of 12.4M per mm². GCN 3.0 is a newer, more efficiency-oriented design, and the R8 M445DX configures it with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs.

Memory is a major divergence. The Quadro 4000M has a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R8 M445DX uses system shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively. That reliance on shared system memory explains why the AMD part's memory performance is entirely dependent on the host platform's configuration, a significant handicap in bandwidth-sensitive workloads compared to the Quadro's dedicated, high-speed GDDR5.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 625 MHz, which translates to 2.5 Gbps effective. The R8 M445DX has explicit base and boost clocks of 780 MHz and 1021 MHz, with its memory clock also listed as "System Shared." The AMD part's boost capability is notable, as it allows dynamic clock scaling that the Fermi part does not document.

Feature support shows the generational gap. The R8 M445DX supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. The older NVIDIA part's DirectX 11_0 feature level is a clear limitation for modern APIs, while the AMD part's Vulkan support and full DirectX 12_0 feature set reflect its later release.

Power and physical design also differ. The Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors, meaning it draws power through the MXM slot. The R8 M445DX has no recorded TDP, uses an IGP slot width and bus interface, and is designed as an integrated part, which implies much lower power consumption, though the database does not provide a number.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the faster part. Its 10.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the only directly measured comparison, and it holds up well against a cluster of modern mainstream GPUs in its rival list. For anyone running OpenCL-based compute tasks, the Quadro 4000M is the choice supported by recorded evidence.

The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, despite losing the only benchmark, offers features that the Quadro lacks. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support and DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level make it the more future-proof option for modern graphics APIs, even if raw OpenCL performance is lower. Its FP16 support at 1:1 and higher pixel rate suggest it could be competitive in specific workloads, but those advantages are not backed by any recorded benchmark win.

The Quadro 4000M also has the edge in memory configuration, with dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the R8 M445DX's system shared memory. That dedicated memory is a concrete advantage, not a speculative one, and it likely contributes to the Quadro's OpenCL win despite the R8's slightly higher FP32 figure.

Buyers should pick the Quadro 4000M for compute-heavy tasks where OpenCL performance matters most, and the R8 M445DX for systems that need modern API support or FP16 capability in a low-power integrated form factor. The Quadro's 100 W TDP and MXM module design target mobile workstations, while the R8 M445DX's IGP design targets thin-and-light laptops with shared memory systems.

The percentile rankings reinforce the gap: the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the R8 M445DX sits at the 27th. That 3 percentile point spread between them is consistent with their 10.2% benchmark delta, both indicators that the Quadro is the better-positioned part in the database's ranking system.

Strictly from the data, there is no scenario where the R8 M445DX wins a recorded test, so the verdict must favor NVIDIA for anyone who relies on recorded results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points, which is 10.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX's 4727 points in the only recorded benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX have any performance advantage?

A: The R8 M445DX has a higher pixel rate of 8.168 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 6.650 GPixel/s, and its FP32 compute of 653.4 GFLOPS is slightly higher than the Quadro's 638.4 GFLOPS, though neither edge shows up in a recorded benchmark win.

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The Quadro 4000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R8 M445DX uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The R8 M445DX supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support.

Q: How do the two chips compare in transistor count and die size?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the R8 M445DX has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving the AMD part a higher transistor density of 12.4M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each GPU?

A: The Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the R8 M445DX sits at the 27th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | AMD Radeon R8 M445DX |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None recorded | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None recorded | 1021 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 336 | 320 |

| TMUs | 56 | 20 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 8.168 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 20.42 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 638.4 GFLOPS | 653.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None recorded | 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | None recorded |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None recorded |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | IGP |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | None recorded | 1.2.170 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 5211 | 4727 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 30 | 27 |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2016-05-14 |