AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 records an average benchmark score of 6001, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5467 on average, which puts it in the 32nd percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 dominates this test with a score of 680, while the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores only 176. That is a 74.1% deficit for the AMD card in this particular workload.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 takes a decisive win in Geekbench OpenCL with 32011 points versus 19118 for the Quadro M4000, a 67.4% advantage. This is the largest margin of victory for either card in the head-to-head results.

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, achieving 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 1664 shading units and 104 TMUs, far exceeding the RX 6400's 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. However, the AMD card has a higher pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s vs 49.47 GPixel/s) and texture rate (111.4 GTexel/s vs 80.39 GTexel/s).

Q: How many wins does each card claim in the head-to-head benchmark suite?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins 7 of the 10 head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins 3. Despite this, the Quadro M4000's wins include the largest individual margin (74.1% in 3DMark Steel Nomad).

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This is a modern design with 5,400 million transistors packed into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing via 12 dedicated RT cores. The RX 6400 also offers Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 support.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, built on a much older 28 nm process at the same foundry. It contains 5,200 million transistors spread across a substantially larger 398 mm² die, resulting in a lower transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Maxwell architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is a lower feature level than the RX 6400's 12_2. It lacks dedicated ray tracing cores entirely. The Quadro M4000 also supports Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6.

The difference in process technology is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm. This explains how the RX 6400 achieves higher clock speeds (1923 MHz base, 2321 MHz boost) despite its lower 53 W TDP, while the Quadro M4000 has a 120 W TDP and no listed base or boost clocks in the database. The RX 6400's RDNA 2.0 architecture also brings a 2:1 FP16 ratio, offering 7.130 TFLOPS of half-precision compute, whereas the Quadro M4000 has no FP16 data recorded.

The bus interface differs as well: the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the Quadro M4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6400 also features ray tracing hardware, a capability the older Quadro simply does not possess. These architectural gaps explain why the newer AMD card wins in most synthetic tests despite having fewer shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the better choice for modern DirectX 10, 11, and 12 workloads, as well as OpenCL compute and 2D operations. It wins 7 of 10 head-to-head tests, including a 67.4% margin in OpenCL and a 42.9% margin in DirectX 11. Its higher clock speeds and newer architecture give it an edge in most contemporary gaming and compute scenarios.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is preferable for DirectX 9 legacy workloads and for the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it leads by 74.1%. Its larger memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB) and wider 256-bit bus provide 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which may benefit memory-intensive tasks. The Quadro M4000 also wins in Vulkan by 33.6%, suggesting it handles that API more efficiently.

Users targeting modern API support, ray tracing, and lower power consumption should pick the RX 6400. Users needing larger memory capacity, legacy DirectX 9 performance, or superior Vulkan results should consider the Quadro M4000. The RX 6400's launch MSRP was 159 USD, but the Quadro M4000 has no recorded launch price in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The RX 6400 uses a 6 nm process with a 107 mm² die and 5,400 million transistors, while the Quadro M4000 uses a 28 nm process with a 398 mm² die and 5,200 million transistors. Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² for AMD versus 13.1M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: the RX 6400 has a base clock of 1923 MHz and boost of 2321 MHz, plus a game clock of 2039 MHz. The Quadro M4000 has no base or boost clocks recorded. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the RX 6400 versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro.

Memory: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth for AMD; 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth for NVIDIA. Compute units: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs for the RX 6400; 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, 64 ROPs for the Quadro M4000. The RX 6400 has 12 RT cores; the Quadro has none.

Rates: pixel rate 74.27 GPixel/s vs 49.47 GPixel/s, texture rate 111.4 GTexel/s vs 80.39 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.565 TFLOPS for AMD versus 2.573 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 7.130 TFLOPS for AMD, with no data for NVIDIA.

Power and physical: TDP 53 W vs 120 W, both single-slot. The RX 6400 has no power connectors; the Quadro requires 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 250 W for AMD and 300 W for NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x4 vs PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for AMD; 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA. The Quadro measures 241 mm by 111 mm; the RX 6400 has no dimensions recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test delivers the most dramatic gap. The Quadro M4000 scores 680 versus 176 for the RX 6400, a 74.1% lead for NVIDIA. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison and suggests the Maxwell architecture handles this particular DX12 workload far better.

Geekbench OpenCL flips the script. The RX 6400 scores 32011 against 19118 for the Quadro, a 67.4% advantage. This is the RX 6400's biggest win and demonstrates the strength of RDNA 2.0 in compute-oriented tasks.

Geekbench Vulkan goes to NVIDIA again: 24640 versus 16372, a 33.6% margin. The Quadro M4000's Vulkan performance is notably strong given its age.

PassMark DirectX tests show consistent AMD wins across every version. DirectX 10: 54 vs 33, a 63.6% lead. DirectX 11: 70 vs 49, a 42.9% lead. DirectX 12: 30 vs 26, a 15.4% lead. DirectX 9 is the exception: the Quadro M4000 wins 113 vs 93, a 17.7% margin.

PassMark G2D and G3D also favor AMD. G2D: 722 vs 673, a 7.3% lead. G3D: 7673 vs 6680, a 14.9% lead. PassMark GPU Compute is close: 2812 vs 2660, a 5.7% win for the RX 6400.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the clear winner in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. It leads in Geekbench OpenCL by 67.4%, in PassMark DirectX 10 by 63.6%, and in DirectX 11 by 42.9%. It also wins DirectX 12 by 15.4%, G2D by 7.3%, G3D by 14.9%, and GPU Compute by 5.7%. Users running OpenCL applications, DirectX 10/11 games, or general 2D/3D rendering will see better performance from the RX 6400.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins where legacy compatibility or specific API optimizations matter. Its 74.1% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is remarkable, and it also wins DirectX 9 by 17.7% and Vulkan by 33.6%. The 8 GB memory capacity and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth may also make it more suitable for large datasets, even though its raw compute rates are lower.

The win distribution (7 for AMD, 3 for NVIDIA) suggests the RX 6400 is the more versatile card overall. However, the magnitude of NVIDIA's wins in Steel Nomad and Vulkan cannot be ignored. For users focused on those specific workloads, the Quadro M4000 remains relevant despite its older architecture and lower average benchmark score.