AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement between the two cards in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. In that test, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points. This gives the AMD card a 514.3% advantage, a difference of roughly six times the raw compute output. The result is decisive and consistent with the architectural gap between the two products, as the RX 6400 is built around a modern RDNA 2.0 design with far higher throughput metrics across the board.

The RX 6400 also holds a broader benchmark portfolio in the database, with results spanning DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, as well as 3DMark Steel Nomad, Passmark G2D, Passmark G3D, and Passmark GPU Compute. The Quadro 4000M has only a single recorded benchmark result, the Geekbench OpenCL test, so cross-test comparisons are limited. However, the RX 6400's average benchmark score of 6,001 across its full suite places it near the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile with an average score of 5,211.

The RX 6400's nearest rivals, based on average score, include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (0% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.1% delta), the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0.3% delta). These rivals cluster tightly around the RX 6400, meaning the card's 6,001 average score is only marginally ahead of a group of mid-range and older workstation parts. The Quadro 4000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5,284 (1.4% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236 (0.5% faster), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5,161 (1% slower), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5,154 (1.1% slower). This indicates the Quadro 4000M performs in line with older mobile GeForce and Quadro parts from the same era.

In terms of raw compute, the RX 6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS. The RX 6400 also offers FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature entirely absent from the Quadro 4000M's specifications. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the RX 6400 reaches 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 4000M achieves 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s. These figures translate directly into the observed OpenCL gap, as memory bandwidth, shading units, and clock speeds all favor the newer AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 32,011 versus the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's 5,211, a 514.3% difference.

Q: How does the RX 6400 compare to its closest rivals in average score?

A: The RX 6400's average score of 6,001 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (0% delta) and only slightly ahead of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.1% delta), the FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (0.2% delta), and the Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0.3% delta).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but it has no Vulkan support listed. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the transistor and process node differences?

A: The RX 6400 is built on a 6 nm TSMC process with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm TSMC process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, for a density of 5.9M per mm².

Q: Which card has a higher power draw?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W. The RX 6400 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro 4000M lists no suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins in every measurable category where both cards have data. Its 514.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL acceleration, and its FP32 throughput of 3.565 TFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS reinforces that advantage. The RX 6400 also supports FP16 compute at 7.130 TFLOPS, which is useful for applications that can leverage reduced-precision arithmetic, a feature the Quadro 4000M lacks entirely.

For gaming and DirectX workloads, the RX 6400 is the only card with recorded DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 benchmark scores. Its Passmark G3D score of 7,673 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,812 indicate a baseline level of real-world performance far beyond what the Quadro 4000M's single OpenCL result suggests. The RX 6400 also includes 12 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro 4000M does not have, making it the only one of the two capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported titles.

The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, has no benchmark wins in the database. Its only recorded score is the Geekbench OpenCL result of 5,211, which places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all older or lower-end mobile parts, and it sits behind the GeForce 940M by 1.4% and the GeForce GTX 760M by 0.5%. The card's 256-bit memory bus and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth are notable for its era, but the 2 GB GDDR5 capacity and 625 MHz memory clock limit its ability to handle modern workloads. The Quadro 4000M is best suited for legacy environments where its MXM-B (3.0) form factor and portable-device-dependent display outputs match an existing mobile workstation chassis, and where software is optimized for Fermi architecture.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Although the Quadro has more TMUs, the RX 6400's much higher clocks and newer architecture result in a texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s for the Quadro. The pixel rate also favors AMD, at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The RX 6400 has a base clock of 1923 MHz, a boost clock of 2321 MHz, and a game clock of 2039 MHz. The Quadro 4000M has no listed base, boost, or game clocks. Its memory clock is 625 MHz, translating to 2.5 Gbps effective, while the RX 6400's memory runs at 2000 MHz, translating to 16 Gbps effective. Memory bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s for the RX 6400 and 80.00 GB/s for the Quadro, despite the Quadro's wider 256-bit bus.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The RX 6400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a TDP of 53 W, while the Quadro 4000M is an MXM module with a TDP of 100 W and no power connectors. The RX 6400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 bus interface, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs differ as well: the RX 6400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro 4000M's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

API support is another clear split. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The RX 6400 also includes ray tracing cores, which the Quadro does not have.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6400 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, using the Navi 24 chip, and belongs to the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. It is manufactured on a 6 nm TSMC process with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The transistor density of 50.5M per mm² reflects the advanced node and dense design. The card is part of the Radeon RX 6000 series, with a predecessor of Navi and a successor of Navi III.

The Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture, based on the GF104 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. It is manufactured on a 40 nm TSMC process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. This results in a much lower transistor density of 5.9M per mm², which is consistent with an older process node and a larger, less efficient die. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M.

Architectural features also differ in terms of compute capabilities. The RX 6400 has 12 ray tracing cores and supports FP16 compute at a 2:1 ratio. The Quadro 4000M has no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and no FP16 support. The RX 6400's FP32 output of 3.565 TFLOPS is more than five times the Quadro's 638.4 GFLOPS. The RX 6400's shading unit count of 768 is more than double the Quadro's 336, though the Quadro's higher TMU count of 56 versus 48 does not offset the clock and architecture advantages of the AMD card.

The release timeline further illustrates the architectural gap. The RX 6400 was released in January 2022, while the Quadro 4000M was released in February 2011, a span of roughly eleven years. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The RX 6400 has a launch MSRP of 159 USD. The Quadro 4000M has no listed launch MSRP. The RX 6400's production status and modern feature set, including PCIe 4.0, HDMI 2.1, and DisplayPort 1.4a, position it as a current-generation entry-level discrete GPU, while the Quadro 4000M remains a legacy mobile workstation part with no modern connectivity standards.