AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M: a desktop gaming GPU from 2020 facing a mobile workstation GPU from 2015. The data shows a decisive victory for the AMD card, but the Quadro still holds relevance in specific legacy contexts. The RX 5600 XT leads in every shared benchmark, with an average benchmark score of 20,713 against the Quadro’s 20,480, a difference that places both cards within 1% of each other overall, yet their individual test results tell a far more dramatic story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two tests where both cards have recorded scores are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT wins both by overwhelming margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5600 XT scores 68,537, while the Quadro M4000M manages only 19,989. That is a 242.9% advantage for AMD, meaning the RX 5600 XT delivers more than triple the compute throughput in this API. The gap is slightly narrower in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 5600 XT posts 56,218 versus the Quadro’s 20,971, a 168.1% lead. These are not marginal wins; they represent generational and architectural leaps that no driver optimization can bridge.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the RX 5600 XT has a much richer data set. Its Passmark G3D score is 13,457, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 6,296. The Quadro M4000M has no Passmark results in the pack, so direct comparisons there are impossible, but the Geekbench results already establish the hierarchy. The RX 5600 XT’s average benchmark score of 20,713 places it just 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662) and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534). The Quadro M4000M, with its average of 20,480, sits 0.3% behind that same RTX 3070 Mobile and 0.9% behind the R9 M390X. In other words, despite the massive per-test deltas, both cards land in the same performance percentile neighborhood—66th for the RX 5600 XT and 65th for the Quadro—because the average benchmark score is dominated by tests the Quadro never took.

The RX 5600 XT also holds wins in tests the Quadro lacks entirely. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,669, its Geekbench Metal score is 80,376, and its Passmark legacy scores range from 52 in DirectX 12 to 202 in DirectX 9. The Quadro has no comparable entries, so the benchmark comparison is inherently lopsided. The practical takeaway is simple: in any modern workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 5600 XT is roughly 1.7 to 2.4 times faster. For older DirectX titles or compute tasks, the RX 5600 XT’s additional benchmark coverage suggests it handles those too, though the pack lacks direct Quadro numbers to quantify the gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their five-year separation in release dates. The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die—a transistor density of just 13.1 million per mm². The RX 5600 XT crams nearly twice the transistors into a die that is 37% smaller, which explains its massive performance advantage and lower power draw relative to compute output.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The RX 5600 XT has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The shading unit count alone is an 80% advantage for AMD, and the TMU count is 80% higher as well. The RX 5600 XT’s pixel rate is 99.84 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 224.6 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 7.188 TFLOPS for AMD versus 2.593 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 2.77x difference. The RX 5600 XT also supports FP16 at 14.38 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so that is not a differentiator.

Memory architecture is another clear split. The RX 5600 XT uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 5600 XT’s faster GDDR6 memory at 12 Gbps effective (1500 MHz base) gives it 80% more bandwidth than the Quadro’s 5 Gbps GDDR5. The RX 5600 XT also runs on PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Power profiles differ too: the RX 5600 XT is rated at 150 W TDP with a 1x 8-pin connector and a suggested 450 W PSU, while the Quadro is a 100 W MXM module with no power connectors, designed for laptops.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT scores 68,537 versus the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M’s 19,989, a 242.9% lead for AMD.

Q: Does the Quadro M4000M win any benchmark?

A: No. In the only two shared tests—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—the RX 5600 XT wins both. The Quadro has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 5600 XT averages 20,713, which is 1.1% higher than the Quadro’s 20,480. However, this average is skewed because the Quadro only has two benchmark entries while the RX 5600 XT has many more, including Passmark tests where the Quadro has no data.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The RX 5600 XT has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 5600 XT has 41.0 million transistors per mm² on a 7 nm process, while the Quadro M4000M has 13.1 million per mm² on a 28 nm process.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the data. The RX 5600 XT was released on 2020-01-20, and the Quadro M4000M on 2015-08-17.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. Process node: 7 nm for AMD versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 10,300 million for the RX 5600 XT versus 5,200 million for the Quadro. Die size: 251 mm² versus 398 mm². Transistor density: 41.0M/mm² versus 13.1M/mm². Base clock: 1130 MHz versus 975 MHz. Boost clock: 1560 MHz versus 1013 MHz. The RX 5600 XT also lists a game clock of 1375 MHz, which the Quadro lacks. Memory speed: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory size: 6 GB versus 4 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Bus width: 192-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. Shading units: 2304 versus 1280. TMUs: 144 versus 80. ROPs are equal at 64. Pixel rate: 99.84 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 224.6 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.188 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS. FP16: 14.38 TFLOPS (2:1) for AMD, none listed for NVIDIA. TDP: 150 W versus 100 W. Slot width: Dual-slot versus MXM Module. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus None. Suggested PSU: 450 W for AMD, none for NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for AMD versus Portable Device Dependent for NVIDIA. The RX 5600 XT has a launch MSRP of 279 USD; the Quadro has no launch MSRP. The RX 5600 XT has a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches); the Quadro has no listed dimensions. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT wins in every measurable performance category. It is the clear choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, where it is 168-243% faster than the Quadro. Its higher FP32 throughput (7.188 TFLOPS) and FP16 support make it better suited for compute tasks, and its 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth gives it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive applications. The 6 GB VRAM capacity is 50% larger than the Quadro’s 4 GB, which helps with modern textures and larger datasets. The RX 5600 XT also has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, so it wins in any rasterization-heavy scenario. Its PCIe 4.0 interface is backward-compatible and faster in theory. The desktop form factor with standard display outputs (HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a) makes it easier to integrate into a standard PC.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins in exactly one practical area: power consumption. At 100 W TDP, it draws one-third less power than the RX 5600 XT’s 150 W. It is an MXM module with no external power connectors, which means it is designed for laptops and other portable devices where the RX 5600 XT, a dual-slot desktop card requiring a 1x 8-pin connector and a 450 W PSU, cannot physically fit. The Quadro’s 256-bit memory bus is wider than AMD’s 192-bit bus, though the slower GDDR5 memory negates that advantage in bandwidth. The Quadro’s lower TDP and portable form factor are its only redeeming qualities; they do not translate into any benchmark wins. For a system that absolutely requires an MXM module, the Quadro is the only option of the two, but it is not a performance choice.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is the superior GPU in every benchmark where both have scores. Its 242.9% lead in OpenCL and 168.1% lead in Vulkan are not incremental improvements; they are generational leaps. The RX 5600 XT’s average benchmark score of 20,713 also places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, one point above the Quadro’s 65th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the RTX 3070 Mobile, which it edges by 0.9%. Anyone building or upgrading a desktop system should pick the RX 5600 XT without hesitation, provided they can supply a 450 W PSU and accommodate a 267 mm dual-slot card.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is not a competitor in raw performance; it is a legacy component. Its 100 W TDP and MXM form factor make it suitable only for older mobile workstations that require that specific module shape. If you already own a laptop with an M4000M slot and need a drop-in replacement, the Quadro is the only choice between these two, since the RX 5600 XT cannot physically fit. But if you are choosing between these cards for any other reason, the RX 5600 XT wins outright. The Quadro’s 4 GB of GDDR5 and 2.593 TFLOPS FP32 performance are simply inadequate for modern workloads, and its 13.1M/mm² transistor density shows its age. The verdict is simple: buy the RX 5600 XT for performance, and only consider the Quadro M4000M for its portable form factor and lower power draw.