AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single directly comparable benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and the AMD Radeon RX 560: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the AMD Radeon RX 560 scored 16,472 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 managed 4,979 points. The delta percentage shows the RX 560 leading by 69.8%, a substantial margin that reflects a generational gap in raw compute throughput. To put these scores in context, the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the RX 560 sits at the 26th percentile, a surprisingly tight overall ranking despite the large OpenCL gap.

The Quadro 4000’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB with an average score of 4,970 (a delta of 0.2%), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4,998 (delta of -0.4%), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5,018 (delta of -0.8%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4,931 (delta of 1%). These figures indicate that the Quadro 4000’s OpenCL performance is effectively in a dead heat with several modern integrated and entry-level discrete solutions, with all deltas within a single percentage point. The RX 560, by contrast, has nearest rivals that include the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4,577 (delta of -0.2%), Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4,560 (delta of 0.2%), NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4,621 (delta of -1.1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 (delta of -1.3%). Notably, the RX 560’s nearest rivals all have average scores in the 4,500 to 4,600 range, which is far below its own OpenCL score of 16,472. This discrepancy suggests that the average benchmark score for the RX 560, which is 4,569, is dragged down by its other recorded tests, particularly the Passmark DirectX 9 score of 57, DirectX 10 score of 16, DirectX 11 score of 25, and DirectX 12 score of 21. The OpenCL result is an outlier on the high side for the RX 560, while its Passmark G3D score of 3,671 and GPU compute score of 1,437 are more moderate. The Quadro 4000’s average benchmark score is 4,979, exactly matching its single OpenCL result, as no other benchmarks are recorded for that card.

The head-to-head table shows only one benchmark, and the RX 560 wins it. The Quadro 4000 records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the RX 560 records one win. This lopsided result, however, must be interpreted with care. The OpenCL test is a compute-oriented workload, and the two cards come from vastly different eras: the Quadro 4000 was released in November 2010, while the RX 560 arrived in April 2017. The Quadro’s Fermi architecture was designed for professional OpenGL and compute workloads of its time, but its raw floating-point throughput, listed at 486.4 GFLOPS, is dwarfed by the RX 560’s 2.611 TFLOPS. That is a factor of over five in theoretical FP32 performance, and the OpenCL score difference of 69.8% is consistent with that hardware disparity, though not perfectly proportional.

For users looking solely at the head-to-head data, the RX 560 is the clear victor in this specific test. However, the Quadro 4000’s niche was never mainstream compute; it was a workstation card with a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, targeting professional applications where driver certification and stability were paramount. The RX 560, with a launch MSRP of 99 USD, was aimed at budget gaming and general-purpose use. The OpenCL result reflects raw compute capability, but it does not capture the full picture of professional workload performance, which the database does not directly measure for either card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 16,472 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points. The RX 560 leads by 69.8% in this benchmark.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile, while the RX 560 sits at the 26th percentile. Despite the RX 560’s much higher OpenCL score, both cards land in a similar overall percentile range.

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

A: The Quadro 4000 has an average benchmark score of 4,979, which equals its only recorded benchmark. The RX 560 has an average benchmark score of 4,569, which is pulled down by its low Passmark DirectX scores (ranging from 16 to 57) and its Passmark G3D score of 3,671.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Quadro 4000?

A: The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB with an average score of 4,970 (0.2% delta), AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4,998 (-0.4% delta), AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5,018 (-0.8% delta), and AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4,931 (1% delta).

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Radeon RX 560?

A: The nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4,577 (-0.2% delta), Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4,560 (0.2% delta), NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4,621 (-1.1% delta), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 (-1.3% delta).

Q: How many head-to-head benchmark wins does each card have?

A: The Quadro 4000 has zero wins, while the RX 560 has one win. The only head-to-head test recorded is Geekbench OpenCL, which the RX 560 wins.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 560 wins the sole recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 69.8% lead. This suggests that for compute-oriented workloads, such as OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU computing, the RX 560 is substantially faster. Its theoretical FP32 throughput of 2.611 TFLOPS and texture rate of 81.60 GTexel/s are both far higher than the Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS and 15.20 GTexel/s. The RX 560 also has a higher pixel rate at 20.40 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s, indicating better fill-rate performance for pixel-heavy tasks. In terms of memory bandwidth, the RX 560 offers 112.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro 4000 offers 89.86 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. The RX 560’s bandwidth advantage, combined with its larger 4 GB frame buffer versus 2 GB, makes it better suited for modern workloads that require larger working sets.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, despite losing the OpenCL test, has strengths that are not captured in the benchmark data. It is a professional workstation card from 2010, and its Fermi architecture was built for OpenGL and compute tasks with a focus on driver certification for CAD, medical imaging, and scientific visualization. The database does not record any OpenGL-specific benchmark for the Quadro 4000, but its API support includes OpenGL 4.6, which matches the RX 560, and DirectX 12 (11_0) support, albeit at a lower feature level than the RX 560’s DirectX 12 (12_0). The Quadro 4000’s 256-bit memory bus, while slower in aggregate bandwidth, provides better memory parallelism per byte, which can benefit certain access patterns. Additionally, the Quadro 4000 has a lower transistor count density due to its 40 nm process and 529 mm² die size, but its 3,100 million transistors are comparable to the RX 560’s 3,000 million, indicating a much larger physical chip that may have been designed for sustained professional workloads with a 142 W TDP, though the database does not measure thermal performance.

For users selecting a card based on recorded benchmarks, the RX 560 is the winner in compute tasks. For users prioritizing the feature set of a professional workstation GPU, the Quadro 4000 offers a different value proposition, but the database shows no benchmark where it outperforms the RX 560. The RX 560 also has a much lower launch MSRP of 99 USD compared to the Quadro 4000’s 1,199 USD, though price analysis is outside the scope of this comparison. In terms of physical attributes, the RX 560 is shorter at 170 mm (6.7 inches) versus the Quadro 4000’s 241 mm (9.5 inches), and it requires no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 needs a single 6-pin connector. The RX 560’s suggested PSU is 250 W versus 300 W for the Quadro, but these are not benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip with a Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process from TSMC, while the RX 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip with GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The Quadro’s transistor count is 3,100 million, slightly higher than the RX 560’s 3,000 million, but the die sizes are vastly different: 529 mm² for the Quadro versus 123 mm² for the RX 560. This results in a transistor density of 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro and 24.4M per mm² for the RX 560, a clear indication of the process node advantage held by the newer card.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Quadro 4000 has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 702 MHz, translating to 2.8 Gbps effective. The RX 560 has a base clock of 1175 MHz and a boost clock of 1275 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The RX 560’s memory bandwidth is 112.0 GB/s versus 89.86 GB/s for the Quadro, despite the Quadro’s wider 256-bit bus compared to the RX 560’s 128-bit bus. The RX 560 achieves this through much higher memory clock speeds.

Compute unit counts also differ. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the RX 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 560 has four times the shading units and double the TMUs, but half the ROPs. Pixel rates are 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 20.40 GPixel/s for the RX 560, while texture rates are 15.20 GTexel/s and 81.60 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 2.611 TFLOPS for the RX 560. The RX 560 also has FP16 performance of 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, while the RX 560 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connector. The Quadro is a single-slot card, while the RX 560 is dual-slot. The Quadro’s dimensions are 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the RX 560 is 170 mm in length with no recorded height or width. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the RX 560. Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the RX 560 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The suggested PSU is 300 W for the Quadro and 250 W for the RX 560.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these cards is generational. The Quadro 4000 is built on Fermi, a 2010 architecture from NVIDIA, while the RX 560 is built on GCN 4.0, a 2017 architecture from AMD. The process nodes reflect this: 40 nm for Fermi versus 14 nm for GCN 4.0. The Quadro’s GF100 chip is large and power-hungry, with a die size of 529 mm² and a transistor density of 5.9M per mm², whereas the RX 560’s Polaris 21 chip is much smaller at 123 mm² with a density of 24.4M per mm². Both chips have similar transistor counts, around 3,000 to 3,100 million, but the newer process allows AMD to pack the same transistor budget into a fraction of the physical area.

The memory architecture differs in bus width. The Quadro uses a 256-bit memory bus, while the RX 560 uses a 128-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 560 achieves higher bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 89.86 GB/s) due to faster GDDR5 memory at 7 Gbps effective versus 2.8 Gbps effective. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 560 has 4 GB, doubling the frame buffer capacity.

Compute architecture differences are stark. The Quadro’s Fermi design has 256 shading units, which are organized in a manner typical of NVIDIA’s Fermi generation, with separate FP32 and FP64 paths (though FP64 is not recorded in the database). The RX 560’s GCN 4.0 has 1,024 shading units, organized in a vectorized design that emphasizes parallel throughput. The RX 560’s FP16 capability at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 is a notable feature of GCN 4.0, while Fermi predates mainstream FP16 support.

API support also differs. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it is feature level 11_0, while the RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a higher feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 560 adds Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro has no recorded Vulkan support. The RX 560’s display outputs include HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, which are modern standards, while the Quadro’s DisplayPort outputs do not specify a version. The RX 560 also has a smaller physical footprint and lower power draw, consistent with its newer architecture.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life. The Quadro 4000’s predecessor is listed as Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The RX 560’s predecessor is Arctic Islands, and its successor is Vega. The generations are listed as Quadro Fermi (x000) for the NVIDIA card and Polaris (RX 500) for the AMD card. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results: the RX 560’s modern GCN design with more shading units and higher clocks delivers a 69.8% advantage in OpenCL compute, while the Quadro 4000’s Fermi architecture, despite its wider memory bus, is limited by older technology and lower clock speeds.