NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The 840M, built on the Maxwell architecture, leverages a modern 28 nm TSMC process with 1,020 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.2M / mm². In contrast, the Quadro 4000 is a Fermi-generation part from the Quadro Fermi (x000) family, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, housing 3,100 million transistors across a massive 529 mm² die, with a much lower density of 5.9M / mm². This fundamental difference in process technology and chip design sets the stage for their divergent performance profiles and power characteristics.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is stark. The GeForce 840M utilizes the GM108S chip, a Maxwell design that focuses on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs are arranged in a configuration optimized for the 28 nm process. The Quadro 4000, using the GF100 chip, is a Fermi design with 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, reflecting an older, more power-hungry architecture that prioritized compute throughput over efficiency.

Clocks and memory configurations further differentiate the two. The 840M operates at a base clock of 1029 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, paired with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 has no listed base or boost clocks but runs its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus, achieving 89.86 GB/s. This 5.6x difference in memory bandwidth is significant, yet the 840M still manages to outperform the Quadro 4000 in the available benchmarks.

Feature support reflects the generational leap. The 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with modern graphics APIs. The Quadro 4000 also lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support, limiting its software ecosystem. Power requirements tell the story of efficiency: the 840M is rated at 33 W TDP with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 consumes 142 W, requires a 6-pin power connector, and occupies a single-slot form factor with a 300 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a single head-to-head comparison, and the GeForce 840M emerges victorious. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 840M scores 5764 against the Quadro 4000's 4979, a 15.8% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test listed, and the 840M wins it outright, giving it a 1-0 record in wins tally. The Quadro 4000 has no benchmark wins in this comparison.

The 840M's win in OpenCL suggests it is better suited for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that leverage this API, despite its narrower memory bus. The Quadro 4000's higher memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s) does not translate into a compute victory, indicating that the 840M's architectural efficiency and higher clock speeds compensate for its bandwidth disadvantage. For applications that rely on OpenCL, the 840M offers a measurable performance edge.

The Quadro 4000's strengths lie in its professional lineage, but the data does not show a benchmark where it wins. Its 32 ROPs and 32 TMUs suggest potential advantages in pixel-heavy workloads, but without benchmark results to confirm this, the available evidence points entirely to the 840M for compute performance. The 840M also has a higher pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (17.98 GTexel/s vs 15.20 GTexel/s), indicating it may also hold an edge in rendering tasks.

FAQ

Q: How significant is the 840M's performance lead over the Quadro 4000?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 840M scores 5764 compared to the Quadro 4000's 4979, a 15.8% advantage. This is a substantial margin that indicates the 840M is clearly faster in this compute workload.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data lists only one test, Geekbench OpenCL, and the Quadro 4000 loses that test. The wins tally shows 1 win for the 840M and 0 for the Quadro 4000.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 840M has an average benchmark score of 5322, placing it slightly above the GeForce 930A (5317, +0.1%) and GTX 980M (5308, +0.3%), but below the Radeon R7 M445 (5358, -0.7%) and just above the GeForce 940M (5284, +0.7%). The Quadro 4000 averages 4979, slightly above the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970, +0.2%) but below the Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, -0.4%) and R5 M430 (5018, -0.8%), while beating the Radeon R7 M360 (4931, +1%).

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate about these GPUs?

A: The 840M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 is in the 29th percentile. This means both are below-average performers in the broader GPU landscape, but the 840M holds a slightly higher relative position.

Q: Is the Quadro 4000's larger memory bandwidth useless?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth versus the 840M's 16.02 GB/s, but this does not help it win the OpenCL test. The 840M's faster core clocks and newer architecture appear to matter more in this specific benchmark.

Q: What about power consumption differences?

A: The 840M is rated at 33 W TDP, while the Quadro 4000 draws 142 W. This makes the 840M far more power-efficient, delivering higher performance while consuming only a fraction of the power.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce 840M. It wins the only available head-to-head benchmark by a 15.8% margin, holds a higher percentile ranking (31st vs 29th), and achieves a higher average benchmark score (5322 vs 4979). For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the 840M is the superior choice.

The Quadro 4000, despite its professional branding and significantly higher memory bandwidth, cannot overcome its architectural age and lower clock speeds. Its 142 W power draw makes it less suitable for energy-conscious systems, and its lack of Vulkan support limits its compatibility with modern software. The 840M's 33 W TDP and broader API support make it a more versatile option for mobile or compact systems.

However, the Quadro 4000 is not without merit. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus could theoretically benefit memory-intensive tasks, and its single-slot design with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs offers established display connectivity. Yet, with no benchmark wins to substantiate these advantages, the 840M remains the data-backed recommendation. The 840M's successor, the GeForce 900M, and the Quadro 4000's successor, Quadro Kepler, both indicate these are end-of-life products, but the 840M exits with a stronger performance legacy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head result is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GeForce 840M scores 5764 against the Quadro 4000's 4979, a delta of 15.8%. This is a decisive victory for the 840M, showcasing its architectural efficiency. The 840M's FP32 performance of 863.2 GFLOPS nearly doubles the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS, which helps explain the compute advantage.

The 840M also leads in pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (17.98 GTexel/s vs 15.20 GTexel/s), reinforcing its superiority in rasterization-adjacent tasks. The Quadro 4000's only notable advantage is memory bandwidth, but this does not translate into a benchmark win. The 840M's higher transistor density (13.2M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²) and newer Maxwell architecture drive its performance, despite the Quadro 4000's larger transistor count and die size.

In terms of rival comparisons, the 840M's nearest rivals include the GeForce 930A (+0.1%), GTX 980M (+0.3%), and Radeon R7 M445 (-0.7%), showing it clusters tightly with mid-range mobile GPUs. The Quadro 4000's rivals include the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (+0.2%) and Radeon R7 Graphics (-0.4%), indicating its performance is comparable to older integrated graphics solutions. This contextualizes the 840M's win: it is not just beating an old professional card; it is outperforming it while aligning with modern entry-level mobile parts.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The 840M uses a 28 nm process with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the Quadro 4000 uses 40 nm with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. Transistor density favors the 840M at 13.2M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm². Clock speeds differ, with the 840M listing base and boost clocks (1029 MHz and 1124 MHz) and the Quadro 4000 listing none; memory clocks differ at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the 840M and 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 4000.

Memory configurations diverge: both have 2 GB, but the 840M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s. The 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates are 8.992 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 17.98 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 863.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs differ sharply: the 840M is 33 W with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 is 142 W, single-slot, with a 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the 840M, versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort for the Quadro 4000. API support shows the 840M with Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan. The Quadro 4000 has a 241 mm length, 111 mm height, and 20 mm width, while the 840M has no listed dimensions. Release dates are 2014-03-11 for the 840M and 2010-11-01 for the Quadro 4000, with the latter having a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD.