AMD Radeon R8 M445DX vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one directly comparable benchmark result between these two cards, and the outcome is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scored 19,118, while the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX managed 4,727. That is a delta of 304.4% in favor of the Quadro. In plain terms, the NVIDIA card delivers roughly four times the compute throughput in this particular workload.

The Quadro M4000 also has a much richer benchmark profile overall. The database lists ten separate scores for it, spanning DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad, Vulkan, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, by contrast, has only a single recorded benchmark score (the aforementioned OpenCL result). This asymmetry itself is informative: the M445DX appears in a much narrower slice of the database, likely reflecting its role as an integrated part of a hybrid graphics solution rather than a standalone add-in card.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the Quadro M4000 sits at 5,467, which places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Radeon R8 M445DX averages 4,727, putting it in the 27th percentile. The gap here is 740 points, or roughly 15.6% in favor of the Quadro when comparing their overall averages, though this comparison is complicated by the fact that the two cards have almost no overlapping test suites.

The nearest rivals listed for the Quadro M4000 provide useful context. Its average score of 5,467 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, a delta of -0.3%), the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444, +0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501, -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508, -0.7%). In other words, the Quadro M4000 sits squarely in a cluster of mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts, none of which can separate itself from the pack by more than a fraction of a percent.

The Radeon R8 M445DX, on the other hand, has nearest rivals that include the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4,752, -0.5%), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4,684, +0.9%), the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4,788, -1.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4,791, -1.3%). The presence of an RTX 3080 in that list is striking, but the delta is only -1.3%, meaning the M445DX's single OpenCL score is right in line with that much larger card's average in this database, at least as recorded. This is a reminder that average benchmark scores can mask enormous architectural differences and that a single OpenCL result is not a substitute for a full test suite.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is in a different league from the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX. The 304.4% OpenCL advantage is the only head-to-head measurement available, and it is overwhelming. For anyone considering the M445DX for OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro M4000 is categorically superior.

However, the verdict is not quite that simple in the other direction. The Radeon R8 M445DX is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a system-shared memory architecture. It consumes no dedicated power connector, requires no separate power supply rating, and its display outputs are dependent on the portable device it ships in. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, is a single-slot, 120 W professional card that requires a 300 W power supply and a 1x 6-pin connector. It is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, so it physically occupies a PCIe slot in a desktop chassis.

The data suggests two distinct use cases. If the requirement is a professional workstation card with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 256-bit bus, and 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, the Quadro M4000 is the only choice between these two. If the requirement is an ultra-thin laptop that needs any GPU at all, the M445DX is the only one that can physically exist there. The Quadro M4000 cannot go into an IGP slot, and the M445DX cannot drive four DisplayPort outputs at 4K resolution. There is no overlap in their intended physical environments.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Quadro sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, which is modest by absolute standards but respectable for a professional card of its era. The M445DX sits at the 27th percentile, which is lower, but it does so with a fraction of the silicon: 1,550 million transistors versus 5,200 million for the Quadro. The M445DX achieves about 77% of the Quadro's percentile position with roughly 30% of the transistor budget. That is an efficiency story, even if the raw performance gap remains enormous.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries, different design philosophies, and different eras of mobile computing. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX uses the Meso chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, for a density of 12.4 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ by a factor of roughly five. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The M445DX has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are not close numbers; they represent entirely different classes of silicon. The Quadro's pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s. The M445DX manages 8.168 GPixel/s and 20.42 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 653.4 GFLOPS for the M445DX, a fourfold disparity that matches the OpenCL benchmark delta.

Memory is where the architectures diverge most sharply in philosophy. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The M445DX has no dedicated memory at all: its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the AMD part relies entirely on the host system's RAM, which introduces latency and bandwidth constraints that a dedicated frame buffer avoids. The Quadro's memory clock is 1502 MHz, or 6 Gbps effective, while the M445DX has no independent memory clock to record.

The API support also differs subtly. Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro reaches 12_1 while the M445DX stops at 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is present on both, but the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4 while the M445DX lists 1.2.170. These are small gaps, but they matter for specific application compatibility in professional visualization and compute stacks.

The Quadro M4000 also supports FP16? No, the database lists its FP16 as null, while the M445DX lists FP16 at 653.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This means the AMD card can do FP16 at the same rate as FP32, which is unusual and potentially useful for certain machine learning workloads, though the absolute throughput is still far below the Quadro's FP32 number.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, while the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX averages 4,727. The Quadro is 740 points higher, which places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs versus the M445DX's 27th percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the only direct head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scored 19,118 versus 4,727 for the M445DX. That is a 304.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD card have any dedicated video memory?

A: No. The Radeon R8 M445DX uses system-shared memory, with its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The M445DX supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W power supply. The M445DX is an integrated GPU with no dimensions, no power connectors, and no PSU requirement, designed to be part of a portable device.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The M445DX has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has more than five times the shading units and exactly eight times the ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins in every compute scenario where a dedicated GPU can be installed. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth makes it suitable for large frame buffers, high-resolution textures, and multi-display professional work. The four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are a clear workstation advantage, as is the 120 W TDP that fits into standard desktop power envelopes. The Quadro's 64 ROPs and 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate give it strong rasterization throughput for CAD viewports and scientific visualization. Its 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 performance is the kind of number that matters for simulation and rendering workloads.

The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX wins in the only category that matters for its existence: portability. It is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no PSU requirement. It can be embedded in a laptop where a 241 mm, 120 W card cannot physically go. Its system-shared memory means it can access large pools of system RAM, which can be an advantage in memory-constrained designs. It also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, which the Quadro does not list at all. For lightweight compute tasks on battery power, the M445DX is the only option between these two.

The data also reveals that neither card is dominant in its own peer group. The Quadro M4000's average score sits within 0.7% of four rival cards, none of which is clearly faster or slower. The M445DX is similarly clustered, with its nearest rivals all within 1.3% of its score, including the unexpected appearance of the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB. These tight clusters suggest that both cards occupy their respective performance tiers without standing out from the crowd.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two cards differ. Shared traits include the 28 nm TSMC process, OpenGL 4.6 support, DirectX 12 support (with different feature levels), and end-of-life production status.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | AMD Radeon R8 M445DX |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GM204 | Meso |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm (same) |

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

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 125 mm² |

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

| Memory Size | 8 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective | None |

| Shading Units | 1,664 | 320 |

| TMUs | 104 | 20 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 8.168 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 20.42 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.573 TFLOPS | 653.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | None listed | 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 120 W | None listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm | None |

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

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | None |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | None |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5,467 | 4,727 |

| Percentile | 32nd | 27th |

The release dates show the Quadro came first, in June 2015, followed by the Radeon in May 2016. Both are end-of-life products now. The Quadro has a clear predecessor and successor in the product stack, while the M445DX has neither listed, reinforcing its status as a one-off integrated solution for a specific laptop generation.