NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, which takes both recorded head-to-head tests. The most pronounced gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro K4000 scores 6,964 against the GeForce 840M's 4,880. That is a 42.7% advantage for the professional workstation card, a substantial margin that points to significantly stronger compute throughput in API-level workloads. The OpenCL result is closer but still favors the Quadro K4000: 6,816 versus 5,764, a difference of 18.3%. Both tests, then, confirm the same direction of travel: the Quadro K4000 is the faster part in raw synthetic compute.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the Quadro K4000 lands at 5,982, while the GeForce 840M averages 5,322. That 660-point gap reinforces the head-to-head findings, though the average is pulled down for the 840M by its weaker Vulkan showing. The Quadro K4000's average also sits just below its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, which averages 5,986, a delta of only -0.1%. The GeForce 840M, by contrast, is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317, a 0.1% delta) and sits slightly above the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284, a 0.7% delta). In percentile terms, the Quadro K4000 ranks in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 840M ranks in the 31st. That is a modest percentile gap, but the head-to-head deltas are far more decisive.

The architecture differences explain much of this. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip under the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce 840M uses the GM108S chip under Maxwell, also on TSMC's 28 nm node. Despite being on the same process, the two chips diverge sharply in scale. The Quadro K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the 840M packs only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro's die is nearly three times larger, which translates into far more execution resources: 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is exactly half the shaders, a quarter of the TMUs, and a third of the ROPs. The compute figures follow directly: the Quadro delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the 840M. Pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s against 8.992 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Memory is another major separator. The Quadro K4000 carries 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 840M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing only 16.02 GB/s. That is an 8.4x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, a figure that matters enormously in memory-bound workloads and explains why the Vulkan delta is so much larger than the OpenCL one. Memory clock rates also differ: the Quadro runs at 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the 840M runs at 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The bus width difference, 192-bit versus 64-bit, amplifies the bandwidth gap further.

Power consumption tells the opposite story. The Quadro K4000 has a TDP of 80 W and requires a 6-pin power connector, plus a suggested 250 W power supply. The GeForce 840M is an integrated graphics processor with a 33 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU rating. The 840M is clearly the efficiency champion, delivering its compute at less than half the power draw. But in absolute performance, the Quadro wins every recorded test.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 18.3% and Geekbench Vulkan by 42.7%. There are no tests in the data where the GeForce 840M comes out ahead. The win count is 2 for the Quadro, 0 for the 840M.

For compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL, the Quadro K4000's advantage is solid but not overwhelming. The 18.3% lead suggests that the Quadro's higher shader count and memory bandwidth provide a meaningful edge, but the 840M is not entirely outclassed in this workload. The 840M's Maxwell architecture, despite fewer cores, manages to keep the OpenCL gap under 20 percentage points, likely due to better per-clock efficiency in the newer design.

Vulkan is where the Quadro runs away with it. The 42.7% delta indicates that the Quadro's memory subsystem and larger compute footprint are far more decisive in this API. The 840M's 16.02 GB/s bandwidth is a severe bottleneck for Vulkan-style workloads, which often feature heavy buffer and texture access. The Quadro's 134.8 GB/s bandwidth eliminates that constraint, allowing its 768 shaders to stay fed.

For gaming-style workloads that stress pixel throughput, the Quadro also holds the edge, though the database does not include a dedicated gaming benchmark. The pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s means the Quadro can fill frames faster. The texture rate gap is even larger: 51.84 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, a 2.9x difference. Any workload that samples many textures will heavily favor the Quadro.

The GeForce 840M's only advantages are power efficiency and physical integration. At 33 W, it draws less than half the Quadro's 80 W. It needs no external power connector and no separate PSU recommendation. It is an IGP, meaning it slots directly into a portable device. None of these advantages show up in the benchmark scores, but they matter for deployment scenarios. The 840M is for devices where space, heat, and battery life are primary constraints. The Quadro is for systems where performance is the priority and a 241 mm card with a 6-pin connector is acceptable.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark. It leads by 18.3% in OpenCL and 42.7% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 5,982 versus 5,322, and it ranks in the 34th percentile of all GPUs compared to the 840M's 31st. Anyone choosing between these two for compute performance should pick the Quadro K4000 without hesitation.

The Quadro K4000 is also the only one of the two with a recorded launch MSRP, which was 1,269 USD. The GeForce 840M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The Quadro's professional positioning is reinforced by its display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2), its single-slot form factor, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in a desktop workstation, the Quadro K4000 is the clear choice. Its memory bandwidth alone justifies the selection: 134.8 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s is a difference that no driver or software optimization can overcome. The larger shader count, higher texture rate, and greater pixel rate all support the same conclusion.

For users who need a low-power GPU for a portable device, the GeForce 840M is the only realistic option. Its 33 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin laptops. The Quadro K4000, with its 80 W TDP, 6-pin connector, and 241 mm length, cannot fit in such a device. But within the constraints of a portable system, the 840M still delivers respectable compute: its 5,764 OpenCL score is within 18.3% of the Quadro, and its 4,880 Vulkan score is within 42.7%.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof purchase. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi line, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The 840M's predecessor is GeForce 700M, and its successor is GeForce 900M. The release dates are 2013-02-28 for the Quadro and 2014-03-11 for the 840M, making the Quadro slightly older.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,982, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M averages 5,322.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro K4000 scores 6,964 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 4,880 for the 840M, a delta of 42.7% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth from 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus. The GeForce 840M has 16.02 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the GeForce 840M win in any benchmark category?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head results show 2 wins for the Quadro K4000 and 0 wins for the GeForce 840M.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a TDP of 80 W and requires a 6-pin power connector. The GeForce 840M has a TDP of 33 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher in the global percentile?

A: The Quadro K4000 ranks in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 840M ranks in the 31st percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different market segments. The Quadro K4000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip, a design from the Quadro Kepler generation (Kx000). The GeForce 840M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, from the GeForce 800M generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The GK106 integrates 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The GM108S integrates 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a higher density of 13.2 million per mm². The Maxwell chip is more densely packed, but the Kepler chip has 2.5x more transistors overall and a die that is 2.9x larger.

The compute resources differ by design. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The GeForce 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The FP32 throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 863.2 GFLOPS for the 840M. Neither has a recorded FP16 figure.

Memory architecture is also fundamentally different. The Quadro uses GDDR5 with a 192-bit bus, while the 840M uses DDR3 with a 64-bit bus. The Quadro's memory clock is listed at 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the 840M's is 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Quadro's 134.8 GB/s bandwidth is a product of both wider bus and faster memory.

API support shows some overlap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ: the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 840M supports Vulkan 1.4. This newer Vulkan version on the 840M does not translate into better Vulkan performance, as the benchmark results show.

The physical designs are entirely different. The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot, 241 mm long, 111 mm high card with a 6-pin power connector and a suggested 250 W PSU. It uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and outputs 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GeForce 840M is an IGP with no dimensions recorded, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro K4000 has a larger chip (GK106 versus GM108S), more transistors (2,540 million versus 1,020 million), and a larger die (221 mm² versus 77 mm²). The Quadro has 768 shading units versus 384, 64 TMUs versus 16, and 24 ROPs versus 8.

Memory capacity favors the Quadro: 3 GB GDDR5 versus 2 GB DDR3. The bus width is 192-bit versus 64-bit, and bandwidth is 134.8 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clock is 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the 840M's is 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The Quadro has no recorded base or boost clock, while the 840M has a base clock of 1,029 MHz and a boost clock of 1,124 MHz. The Quadro's compute rates are higher: 1,244.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 863.2 GFLOPS, 12.96 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s, and 51.84 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs differ as well. The Quadro has a TDP of 80 W, is single-slot, measures 241 mm by 111 mm, uses a 6-pin connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The 840M has a TDP of 33 W, is an IGP, has no recorded dimensions, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display outputs differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the 840M has "Portable Device Dependent" outputs. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 840M supports Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Release dates differ by over a year: the Quadro launched on 2013-02-28, the 840M on 2014-03-11. The Quadro has a recorded launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, while the 840M has none. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The 840M's predecessor is GeForce 700M and its successor is GeForce 900M.