AMD Radeon RX 5700 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M occupy different corners of the GPU market, but the benchmark data makes the performance gap unmistakable. The RX 5700 is a desktop-focused part from the Radeon RX 5000 series, built on the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, while the Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation component from NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 generation. In the two head-to-head tests available, the AMD card wins both, and the margin is not subtle. The data shows a 248.2% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 206% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, which places the RX 5700 in an entirely different performance class despite the Quadro’s professional pedigree.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparisons in the data are two Geekbench compute tests, and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5700 scores 69603 against the Quadro M4000M’s 19989, a delta of 248.2%. That is not a marginal win; it is a three-and-a-half-fold difference in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL test stresses general-purpose GPU compute, and the RX 5700’s 7.949 TFLOPS FP32 performance against the Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS explains the result. The Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS is less than a third of the AMD card’s output, so the score gap aligns directly with the theoretical peak.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story. The RX 5700 scores 64166, while the Quadro M4000M manages 20971, a 206% delta. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales well with raw hardware resources, and the RX 5700’s 2304 shading units versus the Quadro’s 1280 give it a massive execution advantage. The AMD card also has 144 texture mapping units against the Quadro’s 80, and while both have 64 ROPs, the RX 5700’s texture rate of 248.4 GTexel/s dwarfs the Quadro’s 81.04 GTexel/s. Those hardware differences translate directly into the benchmark results.

The Quadro M4000M wins no head-to-head tests in the data. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 20480, which is respectable for a mobile workstation GPU from 2015, but the RX 5700’s average score of 22170 puts it 8.2% higher overall. The RX 5700 also reaches the 67th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 65th percentile. That percentile difference is small, but the head-to-head deltas are not—the RX 5700 is over twice as fast in both shared tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5700 has an average benchmark score of 22170, compared to 20480 for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. That is a 8.2% higher average across all recorded benchmarks.

Q: How big is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 5700 scores 64166 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro M4000M scores 20971. The RX 5700 is 206% faster in this test.

Q: Does the Quadro M4000M win any benchmark tests?

A: No. In the data provided, the Quadro M4000M wins 0 tests, while the RX 5700 wins 2. The Quadro’s only recorded benchmarks are the two Geekbench tests, both of which it loses.

Q: How does the RX 5700 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 5700’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6700S, with an average score of 22154 and a delta of 0.1%. It is also 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB (score 21856) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (score 22435).

Q: What is the Quadro M4000M’s closest competitor?

A: The Quadro M4000M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, with an average score of 20534 and a delta of -0.3%. The Intel Arc B570 (20556) and Intel Arc A750 (20582) are also within 0.5% of its score.

Q: Which GPU has better compute performance per the OpenCL test?

A: The RX 5700 scores 69603 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 19989 for the Quadro M4000M. This is a 248.2% advantage for the AMD card.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5700 wins every category where both GPUs have data. In OpenCL compute, it is 248.2% faster. In Vulkan, it is 206% faster. The RX 5700 also has a higher peak FP32 throughput at 7.949 TFLOPS, which is over three times the Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS. For any workload that relies on raw shading or compute—gaming, rendering, or GPGPU tasks—the RX 5700 is the clear choice.

The Quadro M4000M’s wins are not in performance but in form factor and power. It is an MXM module with no power connectors, drawing 100 W, versus the RX 5700’s 180 W with a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector requirement. The Quadro is designed for laptops and portable workstations, where the RX 5700’s 268 mm dual-slot card simply cannot fit. The Quadro also has a lower transistor density at 13.1M / mm², which suggests it runs cooler per unit of work, though the data does not provide temperature figures.

For a desktop build where space and power are not constraints, the RX 5700 is the only sensible pick from the benchmark data. For a mobile workstation that needs professional-grade OpenGL or CUDA support—though the data does not list CUDA scores—the Quadro M4000M is the only option that fits the form factor. The data does not include any professional application benchmarks like SPECviewperf or CAD tests, so the Quadro’s workstation advantage is qualitative, not quantified here.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 5700 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 256-bit bus, but only 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 2.8x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

The RX 5700 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro M4000M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The AMD card has 80% more shading units and 80% more TMUs, while ROP count is identical. Pixel rate is 110.4 GPixel/s for the RX 5700 versus 64.83 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is 248.4 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The RX 5700 runs at a 1465 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost, with a game clock of 1625 MHz. The Quadro M4000M runs at 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. The RX 5700’s memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the Quadro’s is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RX 5700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 5700 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the Quadro’s outputs are marked as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is generational. The RX 5700 is built on RDNA 1.0, a 7 nm process from TSMC, with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. The Quadro M4000M is Maxwell 2.0, a 28 nm process from TSMC, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The RX 5700’s transistor density is 41.0M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm² for the Quadro. That is a 3.1x density advantage, which explains how the RX 5700 packs twice the transistors into a smaller package.

The RX 5700 supports FP16 compute at 15.90 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro M4000M has no FP16 data listed. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. The RX 5700’s predecessor is Vega and its successor is Navi II; the Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M.

The release dates are four years apart. The Quadro M4000M launched on 2015-08-17, while the RX 5700 launched on 2019-07-06. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 5700 had a launch MSRP of 349 USD, which is noted once here. The Quadro M4000M has no launch MSRP in the data.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5700 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M by a massive margin in every shared benchmark. The 248.2% OpenCL lead and 206% Vulkan lead are not incremental improvements—they are generational leaps. The RX 5700’s higher FP32 throughput, double the memory capacity, and nearly three times the memory bandwidth make it the superior GPU for any compute or graphics workload that fits on a desktop.

Who should pick the RX 5700? Anyone building a desktop system for gaming, content creation, or general-purpose GPU compute. The 67th percentile ranking and the average score of 22170 put it in the same league as modern mid-range cards like the RX 6700S (22154, 0.1% delta) and the RTX 5060 Mobile (22435, -1.2% delta). That is remarkable for a 2019 card.

Who should pick the Quadro M4000M? Only those who absolutely need a mobile MXM module for a laptop workstation. The Quadro’s 100 W power draw and no power connectors make it feasible in portable systems, but its 65th percentile ranking and average score of 20480 place it near the RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, -0.3% delta) and Intel Arc B570 (20556, -0.4% delta). It is not a weak card for its form factor, but it cannot compete with the RX 5700 in raw performance. If you can use a desktop GPU, the RX 5700 is the only rational choice from this data. If you cannot, the Quadro M4000M is adequate, but expect less than half the compute performance.