AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a clear split in their strengths. The Quadro M4000M, a Maxwell-based mobile workstation part from 2015, wins the OpenCL compute test decisively, while the Radeon RX 6650 XT, a desktop RDNA 2 card from 2022, dominates in Vulkan graphics performance. This is not a close generational fight; it is a case where each card is purpose-built for different workloads, and the numbers make that distinction obvious.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks shared between these cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the results could not be more one-sided in opposite directions. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 19989, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT manages only 10111. That is a 97.7% advantage for the Quadro, meaning the older NVIDIA card delivers nearly double the compute throughput in this specific test. The data shows a massive gap that cannot be explained by clock speeds alone; the Quadro’s Maxwell architecture and its 256-bit memory bus appear to be far better suited to this OpenCL workload than the Radeon’s RDNA 2 design. In fact, the Quadro’s score places it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and 0.4% of the Intel Arc B570, according to its nearestRivals list, which shows that despite its age, it competes with much newer hardware in this metric.

The Vulkan test tells the opposite story. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT scores 81306, versus 20971 for the Quadro M4000M. That is a 74.2% deficit for the NVIDIA card, meaning the Radeon is nearly four times faster in Vulkan graphics rendering. This is a crushing victory for AMD, and it aligns with the architectural differences: the RX 6650 XT has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ray accelerators, while the Quadro has 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. The Radeon’s 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus also delivers 280.3 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the Quadro’s 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 160.4 GB/s. The Vulkan result is a clear indication of modern graphics API efficiency, where the newer architecture simply overwhelms the older one.

With one win each, the head-to-head record is tied at 1-1, but the magnitude of each victory is asymmetric. The Quadro’s OpenCL win is a near-double, while the Radeon’s Vulkan win is a near-quadruple. Both cards have a percentileVsAllGpus of 65, which places them in the same overall performance tier, but the average benchmark score tells a slightly different story: the Quadro averages 20480, while the Radeon averages 19765. That is a 3.6% difference, within the margin of error, but it suggests that the Quadro is more consistent across diverse workloads. The Radeon’s nearestRivals include the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 at 19602, both of which are older workstation cards, while the Quadro’s rivals include the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and Intel Arc B570, indicating it punches above its weight in aggregate scoring.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split here is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, which are common in scientific simulation, data analysis, and certain professional rendering tasks. Its 97.7% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL is not a slight edge; it is a dominant performance that makes it the clear choice for any application that relies heavily on this API. The card’s 64 ROPs and 64.83 GPixel/s pixel rate also suggest strong fill-rate performance for its era, and its 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die indicate a large, compute-oriented design. For legacy workstation software that uses OpenCL for GPU acceleration, the Quadro M4000M is the superior option, and its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while small by modern standards, is sufficient for many professional datasets.

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT wins in Vulkan graphics, which is the modern standard for gaming and real-time rendering. Its 74.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is a massive advantage, and it is backed by hardware that is designed for exactly this purpose: 32 ray accelerators for ray tracing, 128 TMUs for texture work, and a boost clock of 2635 MHz that enables high frame rates. The card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, whereas the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), so the Radeon is future-proofed for newer game engines. For any gaming workload, even a demanding one, the RX 6650 XT is the only sensible choice between these two. The Radeon also has superior memory bandwidth at 280.3 GB/s, which helps in texture-heavy scenes, and its 8 GB frame buffer is double the Quadro’s, allowing for higher resolutions and larger assets without swapping.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the Radeon shows strength in other benchmarks from its own list: it scores 17166 in Passmark G3D and 97969 in Geekbench Metal, indicating strong overall graphics performance across multiple APIs. The Quadro, by contrast, has no such additional data, so its profile is narrower. This suggests that the Radeon is a more versatile card for mixed workloads, while the Quadro is specialized for OpenCL compute. The Radeon’s FP32 throughput of 10.79 TFLOPS is also over four times the Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS, which is a theoretical peak that likely translates to better performance in many parallel tasks, despite the OpenCL result to the contrary.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT uses the Navi 23 chip on RDNA 2.0, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 11,060 million transistors in a much smaller 237 mm² die, achieving a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. This is a 3.5x improvement in density, which allows AMD to pack more compute units and features into a smaller footprint while consuming more power: the Radeon has a TDP of 176 W versus the Quadro’s 100 W.

Clock speeds also differ dramatically. The Quadro runs at a base of 975 MHz and a boost of 1013 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Radeon runs at a base of 2055 MHz, a game clock of 2410 MHz, and a boost of 2635 MHz, with memory at 2190 MHz (17.5 Gbps effective). The Radeon’s boost clock is 2.6 times higher, which, combined with its 2048 shading units versus 1280, gives it a theoretical FP32 performance of 10.79 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS. The Radeon also supports FP16 at 21.59 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability, making the Radeon better suited for AI and machine learning tasks that use mixed precision.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 280.3 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the Radeon’s faster memory clocks give it 75% more bandwidth, which is critical for modern games. The Radeon also includes 32 ray accelerators and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the Quadro has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Radeon’s newer architecture is better optimized for these APIs. The Quadro is a PCIe 3.0 x16 card, while the Radeon is PCIe 4.0 x8, which means the Radeon has higher bandwidth per lane but relies on the new standard for full performance.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the choice is clear based on workload. If your primary application uses OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is the winner. Its 97.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is undeniable, and its 65th percentile ranking, alongside rivals like the RTX 3070 Mobile, shows it is no slouch. This card is a professional workstation part, and it excels at exactly what it was designed for: compute-heavy tasks in a mobile form factor. It is end-of-life, so availability may be an issue, but for legacy software that relies on OpenCL, it is the better performer.

If your work involves gaming, real-time rendering, or any modern graphics API, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the only rational pick. Its 74.2% Vulkan lead is a generational stomping, and its hardware—32 ray accelerators, 8 GB of GDDR6, and a 2635 MHz boost—is built for today’s games. The Radeon also has a higher average benchmark score across its broader test suite, and its 65th percentile places it in the same tier as the Quadro, but with far more versatility. The Quadro’s 4 GB of memory and 2015 release date make it unsuitable for modern workloads, despite its OpenCL strength. The Radeon’s launch MSRP of 399 USD is a data point, but the performance gap makes the decision about capability, not cost. For a builder choosing between these two, the Radeon is the safer all-around choice, unless your software is locked into OpenCL and you need the Quadro’s specific compute advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, with a score of 19989 versus 10111 for the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, a 97.7% advantage.

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, scoring 81306 versus 20971 for the Quadro, a 74.2% lead.

Q: Do both cards have the same overall performance ranking?

A: Yes, both have a percentileVsAllGpus of 65, but the Quadro’s average benchmark score is 20480, while the Radeon’s is 19765.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon has 8 GB of GDDR6, with bandwidths of 160.4 GB/s and 280.3 GB/s, respectively.

Q: Does the Radeon support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 32 ray accelerators, whereas the Quadro has none.

Q: Which card has a higher power draw?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, with a TDP of 176 W, compared to the Quadro’s 100 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 975 MHz | 2055 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1013 MHz | 2635 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2410 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps) | 2190 MHz (17.5 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 280.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 80 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Ray Accelerators | N/A | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.83 GPixel/s | 168.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 81.04 GTexel/s | 337.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.593 TFLOPS | 10.79 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | N/A | 21.59 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 176 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2022-05-09 |