AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M360 and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, but they target very different workloads. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the Quadro K4100M taking the win in Geekbench OpenCL by a margin of 10.3% (9149 vs 8211). However, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story — the R9 M360 averages 8129 points, while the K4100M averages 7906, making the AMD part 2.8% faster on average across all recorded tests. This discrepancy highlights that the single OpenCL test is not the whole picture, and the R9 M360’s higher percentile ranking (42nd vs 41st) aligns with its slightly better aggregate score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a clear win for the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M. The K4100M scores 9149 against the R9 M360’s 8211, a delta of -10.3% from the AMD card’s perspective. That is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput for this particular API. The K4100M’s advantage in this test is likely tied to its much larger chip and higher shader count, which we will cover in the architecture section. If your workload relies heavily on OpenCL compute, the data here favors the Quadro.

However, the broader benchmark picture is more nuanced. The R9 M360’s average benchmark score across all tests is 8129, which is 2.8% higher than the K4100M’s 7906 average. The R9 M360 also edges out the K4100M in percentile ranking: 42nd vs 41st among all GPUs. This means that in aggregated performance, the AMD card is slightly ahead, even though it loses the specific OpenCL test. The nearest rivals for the R9 M360 include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (avg 8135, -0.1% delta) and the GeForce 945M (avg 8099, +0.4% delta), showing that the R9 M360 sits right in a cluster of similar-performing mobile GPUs. For the K4100M, its closest competitors are the GeForce GTX 460 (avg 7925, -0.2%) and the Quadro P5000 (avg 8039, -1.7%), which places it in a slightly lower performance tier overall.

What does this mean in practice? If you are looking at the single OpenCL benchmark, the K4100M is the clear winner — it delivers roughly 11% more performance in that test. But if you consider the average of all benchmarks, the R9 M360 is marginally faster, by about 3%. This is not a lopsided matchup; it is a trade-off between specific compute performance and general consistency.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, in contrast, uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm process from TSMC, but with 3,540 million transistors on a much larger 294 mm² die — density is 12.0M per mm². The K4100M has more than double the transistor count and a die that is 2.4 times larger.

This hardware difference translates directly into compute resources. The K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. The R9 M360 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a massive difference in parallel processing capacity — the NVIDIA card has 2.25 times the shader count and 3 times the TMUs. Consequently, the K4100M’s texture rate is 67.78 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s for the R9 M360, and its pixel rate is 16.94 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s. FP32 compute is also heavily in the K4100M’s favor: 1.627 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The R9 M360 runs at a base of 900 MHz with a boost of 925 MHz, while the K4100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD card’s higher clocks help it close some of the gap in raw throughput, but not enough to overcome the K4100M’s sheer hardware advantage. Memory is another differentiator: both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the R9 M360 uses a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the K4100M uses a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s. The K4100M’s memory bandwidth is 42% higher, which matters for large data sets and high-resolution textures. The R9 M360 compensates with faster memory clocks — 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) versus 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps) — but the narrower bus limits its total bandwidth.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the stronger compute card in the specific OpenCL test, winning by 10.3%, and it has a clear hardware advantage in shader count, TMUs, ROPs, and memory bandwidth. The R9 M360, however, posts a higher average benchmark score (8129 vs 7906) and a better percentile rank (42nd vs 41st). If your priority is raw OpenCL performance, the K4100M is the pick — the 9149 score is the highest single result between the two. If you want the card with the better all-around average across multiple tests, the R9 M360 takes it by a slim margin.

For professional workstation use, the K4100M’s Quadro branding and higher compute resources suggest it was designed for sustained, certified workloads, and the data supports that with its OpenCL win. For general mobile graphics where average performance matters more than a single API test, the R9 M360’s higher aggregate score makes it the safer choice. Neither card is current, but the K4100M’s 1,499 USD launch MSRP (stated once here) indicates its original professional positioning, while the R9 M360 had no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins with a score of 9149, beating the AMD Radeon R9 M360’s 8211 by 10.3%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The R9 M360 averages 8129 points, while the K4100M averages 7906. This makes the AMD card 2.8% faster on average.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The K4100M has 1152 shading units, while the R9 M360 has 512 — a 2.25x advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K4100M has 102.4 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the R9 M360 has 72.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. The K4100M is 42% higher.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The R9 M360 boosts to 925 MHz, whereas the K4100M is locked at 706 MHz. The AMD card’s boost is 31% higher.

Q: What are the transistor counts?

A: The K4100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die; the R9 M360 has 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The K4100M wins where compute density and memory throughput are critical. Its 1152 shaders and 96 TMUs deliver 67.78 GTexel/s texture fill and 1.627 TFLOPS FP32, making it the better choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads like scientific simulation or GPU compute tasks. Its 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth also helps with large data transfers, and its 32 ROPs offer 16.94 GPixel/s pixel rate, which is useful for high-resolution rendering. If you are running a single-threaded compute test like Geekbench OpenCL, the K4100M’s 9149 score is the benchmark to beat.

The R9 M360 wins on aggregate consistency. Its average score of 8129 is higher than the K4100M’s 7906, and its 42nd percentile rank beats the K4100M’s 41st. This suggests that across a broader suite of tests, the AMD card performs more evenly. Its higher clock speeds — 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost — help it compete despite fewer shaders, and its faster memory clock (1125 MHz vs 800 MHz) partially offsets the narrower 128-bit bus. For users who want a card that performs well across varied tasks rather than excelling in one specific API, the R9 M360 is the data-backed choice.

Specification Differences

• Chip: AMD Tropo vs NVIDIA GK104
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Kepler
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs 3,540 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 900 MHz vs 706 MHz
• Boost Clock: 925 MHz vs 706 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) vs 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 vs 1152
• TMUs: 32 vs 96
• ROPs: 16 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 14.80 GPixel/s vs 16.94 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 29.60 GTexel/s vs 67.78 GTexel/s
• FP32: 947.2 GFLOPS vs 1.627 TFLOPS
• TDP: Not listed vs 100 W
• Slot Width: Not listed vs MXM Module
• Power Connectors: Not listed vs None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs 1.2.175
• Release Date: 2015-05-04 vs 2013-07-22
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 1,499 USD
• Predecessor: Solar System vs Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: Polaris Mobile vs Quadro Maxwell-M
• Generation: Gem System (R9 M300) vs Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)