AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head measurement recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 16,472, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M manages just 5,211. That is a delta of -68.4% for the older NVIDIA part, meaning the RX 560 delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational gap expressed in a single benchmark.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5,211. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236, a -0.5% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161, a +1% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154, a +1.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284, a -1.4% delta). These are all tightly clustered within roughly 1.5% of each other, which indicates that the Quadro 4000M is competitively positioned among its direct contemporaries, but that entire cluster sits at a low absolute performance level.

The Radeon RX 560, by contrast, occupies the 26th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 4,569. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577, a -0.2% delta), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4,560, a +0.2% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4,621, a -1.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4,628, a -1.3% delta). Interestingly, the RX 560's average score is actually lower than the Quadro 4000M's average score, despite the RX 560 winning the OpenCL head-to-head by a wide margin. This discrepancy is explained by the benchmark suite composition: the RX 560 has nine recorded benchmarks, including several Passmark tests with low scores (DirectX 9 at 57, DirectX 10 at 16, DirectX 11 at 25, DirectX 12 at 21), which drag its average down. The Quadro 4000M has only one recorded benchmark, the OpenCL test, so its average is simply that single score.

The OpenCL result is the only shared test between the two cards in the database, and it is the one that matters most for compute-oriented workloads. The RX 560's 16,472 versus the Quadro 4000M's 5,211 represents a 216% improvement in raw OpenCL performance. This is consistent with the architectural leap between the two parts: the RX 560 is built on a 14 nm process with 3,000 million transistors and a 123 mm² die, while the Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The newer part packs more transistors into a smaller area, with a transistor density of 24.4M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm² for the older NVIDIA chip.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows exactly one head-to-head win for the AMD Radeon RX 560, and zero for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M in direct comparison. That does not mean the Quadro is useless; it means its strengths lie outside the measured benchmarks. The Quadro 4000M's single OpenCL score of 5,211 places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, which is actually higher than the RX 560's 26th percentile ranking. For users looking at overall database rankings, the Quadro 4000M appears slightly better positioned relative to the full GPU population, despite being older and architecturally primitive.

The RX 560's wins are in compute-heavy tasks. Its OpenCL score of 16,472 is more than triple the Quadro's, and its FP32 throughput of 2.611 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro's 638.4 GFLOPS. The RX 560 also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio at 2.611 TFLOPS, which the Quadro does not support at all. For pixel and texture processing, the RX 560 delivers 20.40 GPixel/s and 81.60 GTexel/s, versus 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s for the Quadro. These are not close numbers; the RX 560 is roughly three times faster in both rasterization and texturing throughput.

The Quadro 4000M, however, has a wider memory bus at 256 bit versus the RX 560's 128 bit, though the RX 560 compensates with faster memory clocks (7 Gbps effective versus 2.5 Gbps effective) and higher total bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s). The Quadro also offers a larger L2 cache in terms of effective memory subsystem design, though the database does not record cache sizes. For professional workloads that rely on memory bandwidth efficiency, the Quadro's wider bus may be advantageous, but the RX 560's raw bandwidth figure is higher.

Use-case split from the data: the RX 560 is the clear choice for OpenCL compute, DirectX 12 workloads (it supports the full 12_0 feature level, while the Quadro only reaches 11_0), and Vulkan applications (the RX 560 supports Vulkan 1.3, the Quadro has no recorded Vulkan support). The Quadro 4000M is better suited for legacy applications that require its specific MXM form factor, or for systems where its 100 W TDP and lack of external power connectors are acceptable constraints.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture, specifically the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The AMD Radeon RX 560 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 21 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The density difference, 24.4M versus 5.9M per mm², reflects the massive process node advantage of 14 nm over 40 nm.

Shader resources are not remotely comparable. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 560 therefore has over three times the shading units and slightly more TMUs, but half the ROPs. This explains the pixel rate figures: the Quadro achieves 6.650 GPixel/s with its 32 ROPs, while the RX 560 achieves 20.40 GPixel/s with only 16 ROPs, because the RX 560's ROPs operate at much higher clocks (boost up to 1275 MHz versus the Quadro's effectively lower clock, which is not recorded as a base or boost figure).

Memory configurations differ in both capacity and bus width. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, with memory clocked at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560 has double the capacity and 40% more bandwidth, despite a narrower bus, because the memory clock is much higher.

API support is another differentiator. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0 feature level) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0 feature level), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The full DirectX 12 feature level on the RX 560 means it can handle modern rendering features that the Quadro cannot, and Vulkan 1.3 support enables current cross-platform graphics APIs.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The Quadro 4000M is rated at 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The RX 560 is rated at 75 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design with no power connectors, has a suggested PSU of 250 W, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The RX 560 is a more power-efficient part despite delivering significantly more compute performance. The RX 560 measures 170 mm (6.7 inches) in length, while the Quadro's dimensions are not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has an average benchmark score of 5,211, while the AMD Radeon RX 560 has an average of 4,569. However, the RX 560's average is dragged down by multiple low Passmark scores, whereas the Quadro has only one recorded benchmark.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 16,472 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. The RX 560 is 68.4% ahead, meaning it delivers roughly three times the OpenCL compute performance.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 560 supports Vulkan, with version 1.3 recorded. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP, while the RX 560 has a 75 W TDP. The RX 560 also has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, and neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX 12 support?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 supports DirectX 12 at the 12_0 feature level. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M only supports DirectX 12 at the 11_0 feature level, which is a subset of the full specification.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 560 is the superior GPU for virtually every measured workload. Its OpenCL score of 16,472 versus the Quadro 4000M's 5,211 is a decisive margin, and its FP32 throughput of 2.611 TFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS confirms the compute advantage. The RX 560 also offers higher texture and pixel rates, more memory capacity, greater memory bandwidth, full DirectX 12 and Vulkan support, and a lower TDP of 75 W versus 100 W. It achieves all of this on a smaller die (123 mm² versus 332 mm²) and a newer process node (14 nm versus 40 nm).

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's only advantages in the database are its higher percentile ranking (30th versus 26th) and its wider 256 bit memory bus. The wider bus does not translate to higher bandwidth, as the RX 560's faster memory clocks deliver 112.0 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s. For users who need specific MXM form factor support or who are locked into legacy Fermi-era driver ecosystems, the Quadro 4000M remains a functional option, but the data does not support choosing it on performance grounds.

The launch MSRP of the RX 560 is 99 USD, a figure that should be considered alongside its performance profile. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. For any user choosing between these two parts based on the available benchmark data, the RX 560 is the clear recommendation: it wins the only direct head-to-head test, offers superior architectural features, and does so with lower power consumption. The Quadro 4000M is an end-of-life product from 2011, while the RX 560 is an end-of-life product from 2017, and the six-year gap in release dates is reflected in every measurable metric.