AMD Radeon R9 M375X vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along application boundaries. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the outright winner in the only head-to-head test available, taking Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 9,149 against the AMD Radeon R9 M375X’s 8,273. That is a 9.6% margin, and it is the sole decisive victory in the comparison. The AMD card, however, does not go down without a counter-argument: it posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,377, a result the NVIDIA card cannot match because it lacks a Vulkan benchmark entry in this dataset.

For compute workloads that lean on OpenCL, the Quadro K4100M is the clear pick. Its 1,152 shading units and 96 texture mapping units give it a structural advantage in parallel throughput, and the data reflects that. The R9 M375X counters with a higher base clock of 925 MHz versus 706 MHz, but clock speed alone does not overcome the NVIDIA card’s larger execution resource pool.

For anyone targeting Vulkan-based applications, the R9 M375X is the only option with a measured score in this comparison. Its 8,377 Vulkan result sits comfortably above its own OpenCL score of 8,273, suggesting the GCN architecture handles Vulkan’s lower-level API overhead well. The Quadro K4100M has no Vulkan score listed, so any Vulkan workload preference defaults to the AMD part by default of available data.

The overall average benchmark score flips the narrative slightly. The R9 M375X averages 8,325 across its two tests, while the Quadro K4100M averages 7,906 across its two tests. That is a 5.3% advantage for the AMD card in aggregate, but the average is skewed by the Quadro’s Metal score of 6,662, which drags its mean down. The OpenCL head-to-head remains the most apples-to-apples comparison, and there the NVIDIA card wins decisively.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies despite sharing the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Gem System R9 M300 generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture, belonging to the Quadro Kepler-M Kx100M generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts tell a dramatic story. The Quadro K4100M packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, while the R9 M375X manages just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. That is more than double the transistor budget for NVIDIA, and it shows in the execution resources. The Quadro features 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M375X counters with 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 80% more shading units, 140% more TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Quadro K4100M ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375X offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s. That is a 42% bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and larger datasets. The AMD card runs its memory at 4.5 Gbps effective, while the Quadro runs at 3.2 Gbps effective, but the wider bus more than compensates for the lower per-pin speed.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The R9 M375X runs at 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD part’s boost clock is 43% higher than the NVIDIA card’s fixed clock. Despite this, the Quadro’s raw throughput numbers still win: it delivers 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card, a 25% advantage. Pixel rate is nearly identical (16.94 vs 16.24 GPixel/s), but texture rate heavily favors NVIDIA at 67.78 GTexel/s versus 40.60 GTexel/s.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The R9 M375X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The NVIDIA card also has a Metal benchmark score, indicating macOS compatibility, while the AMD card has no Metal entry.

Power and form factor differ as well. The Quadro K4100M is rated at 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot width with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The R9 M375X has no TDP listed but uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The Quadro’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the AMD card’s outputs are unspecified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9,149, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8,273. The delta is -9.6% from the AMD card’s perspective, meaning NVIDIA wins by nearly ten percentage points. This is a substantial margin in GPU compute terms, and it aligns with the architectural disparity in shading units and memory bandwidth.

Breaking down why NVIDIA wins: the Quadro’s 1,152 shading units versus 640 for AMD means 80% more parallel lanes for compute work. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s means the NVIDIA card can feed those lanes more effectively. The 1.627 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 1,299.2 GFLOPS gives it a 25% raw compute advantage. The fact that the actual benchmark margin is 9.6% rather than 25% suggests the AMD card’s higher clocks and GCN efficiency close some of the gap, but not all of it.

The AMD card’s best showing comes in its Vulkan score of 8,377. While there is no direct NVIDIA Vulkan comparison in the dataset, this number is notable because it exceeds the AMD card’s own OpenCL score by 104 points. That 1.3% improvement indicates the GCN architecture responds well to Vulkan’s explicit control model. In contrast, the Quadro’s Metal score of 6,662 is significantly lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Kepler architecture favors OpenCL over Apple’s Metal API.

Looking at the nearest rival data for context, the R9 M375X’s average score of 8,325 places it just 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8,265) and 1.2% behind the GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427). The Quadro K4100M’s average of 7,906 sits 0.2% below the GeForce GTX 460 (7,925) and 1.7% behind the Quadro P5000 (8,039). These relative positions reinforce that the K4100M’s average is dragged down by its weak Metal showing, while its OpenCL strength is what matters for professional compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins decisively with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 9,149 against the Radeon R9 M375X’s 8,273, a 9.6% margin.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark where it leads?

A: The R9 M375X posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,377, which is higher than its own OpenCL score. The Quadro K4100M has no Vulkan benchmark entry in the dataset, so the AMD card leads by default in that API category.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M375X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, a 42% deficit for AMD.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The R9 M375X runs at 925 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. The Quadro K4100M is fixed at 706 MHz for both base and boost. AMD’s boost clock is 43% higher.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface with an MXM Module slot width and no power connectors, rated at 100 W. The R9 M375X uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. For OpenCL-based professional compute workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the superior choice. Its 9,149 OpenCL score beats the R9 M375X by 9.6%, and its architectural advantages in shading units (1,152 vs 640), texture units (96 vs 40), ROPs (32 vs 16), and memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 72.00 GB/s) provide a structural foundation for that win. The Quadro also offers double the VRAM at 4 GB versus 2 GB, which matters for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures.

The Radeon R9 M375X makes its case through higher clocks and Vulkan support. Its 1015 MHz boost clock versus 706 MHz for NVIDIA gives it a per-clock efficiency story, and its 8,377 Vulkan score suggests it handles modern graphics APIs well. The AMD card also has a better average benchmark score (8,325 vs 7,906), though that is partly due to the Quadro’s weak Metal result of 6,662.

For users targeting Vulkan-only applications or those constrained to a PCIe slot form factor, the R9 M375X is the pragmatic pick. For users needing maximum OpenCL throughput, larger memory capacity, and professional mobile workstation compatibility via MXM, the Quadro K4100M is the data-backed winner. The Quadro also carries a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, which reflects its professional positioning.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life, so this comparison is relevant for legacy systems and secondhand purchases. The Quadro’s release date of July 2013 predates the AMD card’s May 2015 release by nearly two years, yet it still wins the critical compute benchmark. That speaks to the efficiency of the Kepler architecture in raw throughput terms, even against a newer GCN design.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M375X | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Chip | Tropo | GK104 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M300) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 4.5 Gbps effective | 3.2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 40 | 96 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.24 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.60 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,299.2 GFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2013-07-22 |

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

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 1,499 USD |