AMD Radeon R9 M390X vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M390X and NVIDIA Quadro M4000M are two end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs from the same 2015 era, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but their benchmark results reveal a clear split in application focus rather than a single overall winner. The data shows the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M takes the only direct head-to-head victory in Vulkan compute, while the AMD card counters with a superior average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking, making the choice dependent on whether the target workload favors raw compute throughput or specific API-optimized performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench Vulkan test, and the result is decisive: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20,971 against the AMD Radeon R9 M390X’s 16,951. That is a 19.2% advantage for NVIDIA, a substantial margin in a compute API that is increasingly relevant for modern rendering and compute tasks. This single data point suggests NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture has a significant edge in Vulkan execution, likely due to driver maturity or hardware scheduling differences, though the fact pack does not specify the cause.

Looking at broader averages, the picture inverts. The AMD Radeon R9 M390X posts an average benchmark score of 20,662 across its tested workloads (Geekbench Metal and Vulkan), while the Quadro M4000M averages 20,480 across its tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). The delta is small — roughly 0.9% — but it places the AMD part in a slightly higher performance tier. In terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs, the R9 M390X sits at the 66th percentile, one point above the Quadro M4000M’s 65th percentile, reinforcing that AMD holds a marginal overall compute lead when averaging across different APIs.

The nearest rival data further contextualizes these scores. The R9 M390X’s average of 20,662 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713, a -0.2% delta), and it edges out the Intel Arc A750 (20,582, +0.4%) and Intel Arc B570 (20,556, +0.5%). Meanwhile, the Quadro M4000M’s 20,480 average trails the same NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534) by 0.3%, and it is 0.9% behind the R9 M390X itself. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that both mobile parts perform in a very tight band relative to much newer discrete GPUs, which is remarkable for 2015-era silicon.

The Vulkan delta is the outlier in this otherwise close race. While the average scores differ by less than 1%, the Vulkan-specific gap of 19.2% is a chasm. This suggests that the AMD card’s overall average is propped up by its strong Metal score of 24,373 — a workload the Quadro cannot match because it lacks a Metal result in the data — while the NVIDIA card excels in Vulkan. Users targeting Vulkan-heavy applications should expect the Quadro to be dramatically faster, while those in Apple-centric Metal environments would see the AMD part dominate, though the fact pack does not include a direct Metal comparison.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M if Vulkan compute performance is the priority. The 19.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the largest measurable performance gap between these two cards, and it is the only head-to-head benchmark where both were tested under identical conditions. This makes the Quadro the safer choice for Vulkan-based rendering engines, game development, or compute workloads that leverage that API.

Pick the AMD Radeon R9 M390X if the workload spans multiple APIs or emphasizes Metal. Its average benchmark score of 20,662 is higher than the Quadro’s 20,480, and its 66th percentile ranking versus 65th indicates slightly better standing in the overall GPU landscape. The R9 M390X also delivers 2.961 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS, a 14.2% raw compute advantage that could translate to faster number-crunching in non-Vulkan contexts. For users on macOS or other Metal-centric platforms, the AMD card’s 24,373 Metal score is the strongest single result in the entire comparison, even though no direct Metal benchmark exists for the NVIDIA part.

Neither card is a clear winner for general-purpose use. The average scores are within 0.9% of each other, and both sit in the same performance neighborhood as modern GPUs like the RTX 3070 Mobile. The decision should hinge on the specific software stack: Vulkan favors NVIDIA decisively, while Metal and raw FP32 throughput favor AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R9 M390X uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on the Amethyst chip, part of the Gem System generation (R9 M300 series). In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M employs Maxwell 2.0 on the GM204 chip, belonging to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation (Mx000M). Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ slightly: AMD packs 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, while NVIDIA uses 5,200 million transistors on a larger 398 mm² die. This yields a marginally higher transistor density for AMD at 13.7M per mm² versus NVIDIA’s 13.1M per mm².

The compute resource allocation is starkly different. The AMD card fields 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA counters with only 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs, but doubles the ROP count to 64. This explains the divergent pixel and texture rates: NVIDIA achieves 64.83 GPixel/s versus AMD’s 23.14 GPixel/s, a 2.7x advantage in pixel throughput, while AMD leads in texture rate at 92.54 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures follow the shading unit counts, with AMD at 2.961 TFLOPS and NVIDIA at 2.593 TFLOPS, but NVIDIA’s higher ROP count makes it far more efficient at fill-rate-bound tasks.

Clock speeds also differ. The Quadro M4000M has explicit base and boost clocks of 975 MHz and 1,013 MHz, respectively, while the R9 M390X’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. Memory clocks are nearly identical, with AMD at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and NVIDIA at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding bandwidths of 160.0 GB/s and 160.4 GB/s — a negligible difference. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Power and API support diverge as well. The AMD part draws 75 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part draws 100 W, a 33% higher power envelope that may explain its higher pixel rate. In API support, NVIDIA leads with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD offers DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Notably, the NVIDIA card does not list FP16 performance, while AMD lists FP16 at 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M390X averages 20,662 across its benchmarks, edging out the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M’s 20,480, a difference of roughly 0.9%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20,971 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M390X’s 16,951, giving NVIDIA a 19.2% lead in that specific test.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M390X has 2,048 shading units, significantly more than the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M’s 1,280 shading units.

Q: Do both cards use the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both use 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with nearly identical bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s for AMD and 160.4 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the difference in pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M achieves 64.83 GPixel/s, which is 2.8 times higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M390X’s 23.14 GPixel/s, due to NVIDIA’s 64 ROPs versus AMD’s 32 ROPs.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R9 M390X supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins decisively in any workload that stresses pixel throughput or Vulkan execution. Its 64.83 GPixel/s pixel rate is more than double the AMD card’s 23.14 GPixel/s, making it the superior choice for rasterization-heavy tasks like high-resolution rendering, anti-aliasing, or viewport display in CAD applications. The 19.2% Vulkan lead further cements its position for Vulkan-based game engines, compute shaders, or cross-platform development tools. Its higher 100 W TDP suggests it has more thermal headroom to sustain these workloads, though the fact pack does not provide sustained-performance data.

The AMD Radeon R9 M390X wins on raw compute throughput and texture processing. Its 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 14.2% higher than NVIDIA’s 2.593 TFLOPS, making it better suited for general-purpose compute tasks like simulation, scientific calculations, or machine learning inference (where FP32 is used). The 92.54 GTexel/s texture rate is 14.2% higher than NVIDIA’s 81.04 GTexel/s, favoring texture-bound workloads like photogrammetry or texture filtering. The AMD card also holds a significant edge in Metal performance with its 24,373 score, which is the highest single benchmark result in the entire comparison, though no direct Metal test exists for the NVIDIA card. Finally, the AMD part consumes 25 W less power (75 W vs 100 W), which could be a consideration in thermally constrained mobile chassis.

The average score advantage, while small, also belongs to AMD. At 20,662 versus 20,480, the R9 M390X is the higher-performing card in aggregate, and its 66th percentile ranking versus 65th confirms this is not a statistical fluke.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every internal specification except memory configuration and process node. The AMD Radeon R9 M390X uses the Amethyst chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses GM204 with Maxwell 2.0. Transistor counts are 5,000 million for AMD and 5,200 million for NVIDIA, with die sizes of 366 mm² and 398 mm², respectively. The shading unit count is 2,048 for AMD versus 1,280 for NVIDIA, while TMUs are 128 versus 80, and ROPs are 32 versus 64.

Clock specifications differ in that the NVIDIA card lists base (975 MHz) and boost (1,013 MHz) clocks, while the AMD card lists no base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are nearly identical at 1250 MHz (AMD) and 1253 MHz (NVIDIA), both effective 5 Gbps. Pixel rates are 23.14 GPixel/s (AMD) versus 64.83 GPixel/s (NVIDIA), and texture rates are 92.54 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.961 TFLOPS for AMD and 2.593 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, with AMD also listing FP16 at 2.961 TFLOPS while NVIDIA lists none.

TDP is 75 W for AMD and 100 W for NVIDIA. API support differs in DirectX version (12_0 for AMD, 12_1 for NVIDIA) and Vulkan version (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.4 for NVIDIA), with both supporting OpenGL 4.6. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces and MXM Module slot widths with no power connectors. The AMD card’s generation is “Gem System (R9 M300)” while NVIDIA’s is “Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M),” and both are marked as end-of-life, with AMD released on 2015-05-04 and NVIDIA on 2015-08-17.