AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the stronger performer in the single benchmark where both cards have recorded results. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 against 6476 for the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, a 5% advantage. The AMD part does hold a higher percentile ranking (37th vs 34th among all GPUs), but that reflects its position in the wider database, not a direct performance win. For anyone choosing between these two, the data points to the Quadro K4000 for raw compute output, with the caveat that its 80 W TDP and dedicated 3 GB GDDR5 memory make it a discrete, installable card. The Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is an integrated part (IGP) with a 10 W TDP, so it is not a drop-in replacement; it belongs in a portable device where power draw is the priority. If the task is a fixed workstation with room for a single-slot card, the Quadro K4000 is the choice based on benchmark results. If the task is a laptop or compact system where the GPU must share system memory and draw minimal power, the Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is the only feasible option from this pair.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, foundries, and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile uses the Raven-M chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with a GCN 5.0 architecture and a die size of 210 mm². It packs 4,940 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, with a Kepler architecture and a die size of 221 mm². It contains 2,540 million transistors, a density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is therefore denser and newer, but the NVIDIA chip is physically larger by 11 mm².

Core counts differ meaningfully. The Radeon Vega 10 Mobile has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. That gives the NVIDIA part more of everything at the hardware level, which aligns with its higher benchmark score. The AMD part compensates with a higher boost clock (1301 MHz vs no listed boost for the Quadro) and a higher FP32 throughput of 1.665 TFLOPS, but the Quadro still wins the OpenCL test. The AMD part also supports FP16 at 3.331 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The Radeon Vega 10 Mobile uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth described as "system dependent." The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth, plus a dedicated memory clock of 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective). This is a major advantage for the Quadro in any workload that benefits from local, high-bandwidth memory.

Feature support also differs. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are end-of-life products. The AMD part's predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is Navi II IGP; the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows exactly one head-to-head result: Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins by 5% (6816 vs 6476). That is the only recorded direct comparison, so any "win" for the AMD part must be inferred from other characteristics rather than from benchmark scores.

The Quadro K4000 wins in raw compute performance, as the OpenCL score demonstrates. It also wins on memory: 3 GB dedicated GDDR5 with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth versus system-shared memory with no fixed bandwidth. For workloads that stress memory bandwidth or require a consistent, dedicated frame buffer, the Quadro is the better option. Its pixel rate is higher (12.96 GPixel/s vs 10.41 GPixel/s), and its texture rate is nearly identical (51.84 GTexel/s vs 52.04 GTexel/s), so it does not lose ground in those metrics either.

The Radeon Vega 10 Mobile wins on power efficiency and integration. Its TDP is 10 W versus 80 W for the Quadro, a 70 W difference. It requires no power connectors, fits as an IGP, and uses the system's existing memory. The Quadro needs a 6-pin power connector, a 250 W suggested PSU, and a full PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. The Radeon also has a higher FP32 figure (1.665 TFLOPS vs 1,244.2 GFLOPS), but that does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded test. The AMD part also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.3 vs 1.2.175), which may matter for specific modern applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6816, which is 5% higher than the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile's 6476.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile be installed in a desktop PC?

A: No. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no slot width, no power connectors, and a bus interface of IGP. It is designed for portable devices, as its display outputs are listed as "portable device dependent."

Q: Does the Radeon Vega 10 Mobile have dedicated VRAM?

A: No. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "system shared," with bandwidth described as "system dependent." The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: What power supply is recommended for the Quadro K4000?

A: The suggested PSU is 250 W. The card itself has a TDP of 80 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The Radeon Vega 10 Mobile has 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the Quadro K4000 has 2,540 million on a 221 mm² die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6816, and the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile scores 6476. The delta is 5% in favor of NVIDIA. This is a clear but not overwhelming victory. The Quadro's advantage is likely tied to its dedicated memory and higher core counts, though the recorded data does not break down the score by subtest.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret this result. The Radeon Vega 10 Mobile's average benchmark score is 6476, which places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (6481) and 0.3% of the GeForce GT 555M (6493). It is 0.6% behind the GeForce GTX 670M (6513) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell (6407). The Quadro K4000's average score is 5982, which sits 0.1% below the Quadro K4000M (5986) and the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987), 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970), and 0.2% below the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996). So while the Quadro wins the direct comparison, its overall standing in the database is slightly lower, which reflects the fact that its OpenCL score is its best result, while its Metal and Vulkan scores (4166 and 6964 respectively) pull its average down.

The Radeon Vega 10 Mobile has only one recorded benchmark (OpenCL), so its average equals its single score. The Quadro has three recorded benchmarks, with the Vulkan score of 6964 being its strongest, followed by OpenCL at 6816 and Metal at 4166. The large gap between Metal and the other two suggests the Quadro is more competitive in cross-platform compute APIs than in Apple's Metal framework.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based on the recorded data.

• Chip: AMD uses Raven-M; NVIDIA uses GK106.
• Architecture: AMD is GCN 5.0; NVIDIA is Kepler.
• Generation: AMD is "Vega IGP (Raven Ridge-M)"; NVIDIA is "Quadro Kepler (Kx000)".
• Process node: AMD is 14 nm; NVIDIA is 28 nm.
• Foundry: AMD uses GlobalFoundries; NVIDIA uses TSMC.
• Transistors: AMD has 4,940 million; NVIDIA has 2,540 million.
• Die size: AMD is 210 mm²; NVIDIA is 221 mm².
• Transistor density: AMD is 23.5M per mm²; NVIDIA is 11.5M per mm².
• Base clock: AMD is 300 MHz; NVIDIA has no listed base clock.
• Boost clock: AMD is 1301 MHz; NVIDIA has no listed boost clock.
• Memory clock: AMD is "system shared"; NVIDIA is 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: AMD is system shared; NVIDIA is 3 GB GDDR5.
• Memory type: AMD is system shared; NVIDIA is GDDR5.
• Bus width: AMD is system shared; NVIDIA is 192 bit.
• Bandwidth: AMD is system dependent; NVIDIA is 134.8 GB/s.
• Shading units: AMD has 640; NVIDIA has 768.
• TMUs: AMD has 40; NVIDIA has 64.
• ROPs: AMD has 8; NVIDIA has 24.
• Pixel rate: AMD is 10.41 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 12.96 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: AMD is 52.04 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 51.84 GTexel/s.
• FP32: AMD is 1.665 TFLOPS; NVIDIA is 1,244.2 GFLOPS.
• FP16: AMD is 3.331 TFLOPS (2:1); NVIDIA has none listed.
• TDP: AMD is 10 W; NVIDIA is 80 W.
• Slot width: AMD is IGP; NVIDIA is single-slot.
• Power connectors: AMD has none; NVIDIA has 1x 6-pin.
• Suggested PSU: AMD has none listed; NVIDIA is 250 W.
• Bus interface: AMD is IGP; NVIDIA is PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display outputs: AMD is portable device dependent; NVIDIA is 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX: AMD supports 12 (12_1); NVIDIA supports 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan: AMD supports 1.3; NVIDIA supports 1.2.175.
• Dimensions: AMD has no listed length or height; NVIDIA is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall.
• Release date: AMD is 2019-01-07; NVIDIA is 2013-02-28.
• Predecessor: AMD is GCN 3.0 IGP; NVIDIA is Quadro Fermi.
• Successor: AMD is Navi II IGP; NVIDIA is Quadro Maxwell.
• Launch MSRP: AMD has none listed; NVIDIA is 1,269 USD.
• Avg benchmark score: AMD is 6476; NVIDIA is 5982.
• Percentile vs all GPUs: AMD is 37th; NVIDIA is 34th.