NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and NVIDIA GeForce 840M occupy opposite ends of the mobile-to-workstation spectrum, but both trace their lineage to the same 28 nm TSMC process. The data shows a decisive performance gap, yet the 840M’s low power draw and compact footprint give it a distinct role. Below, the benchmark results, architectural choices, and specification differences are broken down strictly from the supplied facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Quadro M4000 wins both recorded tests, and the margins are massive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M4000 scores 19118 against the 840M’s 5764, a delta of 231.7%. That is not a marginal lead; it is a 3.3x advantage in raw compute throughput, reflecting the M4000’s 1664 shading units versus 384 on the 840M. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: the M4000 posts 24640, while the 840M manages 4880, yielding a 404.9% delta. Here the M4000 is over 5x faster, a gap that suggests the 840M struggles with modern API workloads or is bottlenecked by its narrower memory bus.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the M4000’s average benchmark score is 5467, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (avg 5483, -0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (avg 5508, -0.7% delta), meaning the M4000 sits right at the edge of a pack of low-end mobile parts in average terms. Yet the M4000’s individual scores tell a different story: its Passmark G3D score is 6680, its Passmark DirectX 11 score is 49, and its Passmark DirectX 9 score is 113. These are strong numbers for a workstation card, but the average is dragged down by weaker results like Passmark DirectX 12 (26) and Passmark DirectX 10 (33). The 840M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5322 (31st percentile), with only two recorded tests — Geekbench OpenCL (5764) and Vulkan (4880) — both far below the M4000’s equivalents.

The wins are all on the M4000 side (2 wins, 0 for the 840M). However, the 840M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (avg 5284, 0.7% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (avg 5317, 0.1% delta), showing that the 840M is competitive within its own mobile segment. It is not a failure; it is simply outclassed by the M4000, which targets a different performance tier. The deltaPct values in the head-to-head tables are the clearest evidence: no benchmark shows the 840M ahead, and the smallest margin (OpenCL, 231.7%) is still a blowout.

Architecture Differences

The M4000 uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the 840M uses the GM108S chip, based on the older Maxwell (not 2.0). Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm² — nearly identical density, but the M4000’s die is over 5x larger in area. This size difference directly explains the M4000’s higher shading unit count (1664 vs 384), texture mapping units (104 vs 16), and raster output units (64 vs 8). The M4000 also doubles the memory bus width (256-bit vs 64-bit) and uses GDDR5 instead of DDR3, which drives its bandwidth to 192.3 GB/s versus a mere 16.02 GB/s on the 840M.

Clock speeds are another differentiator, though the M4000’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The 840M runs at a 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, with memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The M4000’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), which is 50% higher in frequency and 3x in effective rate. The M4000’s pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s and texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s, versus 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s on the 840M — a 5.5x and 4.5x advantage respectively. FP32 compute is also stark: 2.573 TFLOPS on the M4000 against 863.2 GFLOPS on the 840M, a 3x gap that mirrors the OpenCL benchmark delta.

Feature-wise, both support DirectX 12, but the M4000 reaches 12_1 while the 840M only hits 12 (11_0). OpenGL is identical at 4.6, and Vulkan is 1.4 on both. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, as neither is listed in the data. The M4000’s display outputs are four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, while the 840M’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile IGP nature. Power consumption differs dramatically: the M4000 has a 120 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU, whereas the 840M is a 33 W part with no power connectors and no suggested PSU — it is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for laptops.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The Quadro M4000 dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 19118 versus 5764, a 231.7% delta, and in Vulkan it scores 24640 versus 4880, a 404.9% delta. Its FP32 rate of 2.573 TFLOPS is three times the 840M’s 863.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Why does the 840M have such a low bandwidth?

A: The 840M uses a 64-bit memory bus with DDR3 memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding only 16.02 GB/s. The M4000 uses a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), achieving 192.3 GB/s.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The M4000 is Maxwell 2.0 (GM204), while the 840M is Maxwell (GM108S). Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the M4000’s die is 398 mm² versus 77 mm², with 5,200 million transistors versus 1,020 million.

Q: Can the 840M run modern APIs?

A: Yes, but with limitations. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M4000 also supports DirectX 12, but at the higher 12_1 feature level.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The M4000 averages 5467 across all tests, versus 5322 for the 840M. The M4000 sits in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M is in the 31st.

Q: Is the 840M suitable for desktop use?

A: No. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent outputs. The M4000 is a single-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |

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

| Chip | GM204 | GM108S |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | GeForce 800M |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 384 |

| TMUs | 104 | 16 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.573 TFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | GeForce 900M |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1124 MHz |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior performer by every measured metric: it wins both head-to-head benchmarks, delivers 3x the FP32 compute, 12x the memory bandwidth, and 8x the texture fill rate. Its 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 256-bit bus make it suited for large datasets and multi-display workstation setups, as evidenced by its four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The 120 W TDP and single-slot design are acceptable for a desktop card aimed at professional workloads.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M, by contrast, is a low-power IGP with a 33 W TDP and no power connectors. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 64-bit bus cap its bandwidth at 16.02 GB/s, which is a severe limitation for modern games or compute tasks. However, its compact nature and lack of external power requirements make it viable for thin laptops where energy efficiency is paramount. Its average benchmark score of 5322 is only 2.7% lower than the M4000’s 5467, but that average masks the M4000’s massive lead in specific tests like Vulkan (404.9% delta) and OpenCL (231.7% delta).

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, the M4000 is the choice for any task that demands raw compute, high memory throughput, or multi-monitor output. Its nearest rivals are low-end mobile parts (Radeon R7 M440, GeForce MX130), but it outperforms them slightly in average score while offering far more shading units and memory capacity. The 840M is for users who need basic graphics acceleration in a power-constrained environment, with no expectations of high frame rates or large textures. Its nearest rivals (GeForce 940M, GeForce 930A) show it is competitive in its class, but that class is fundamentally below the M4000’s workstation tier. No benchmark in the data suggests the 840M can close the gap, so the verdict is straightforward: the M4000 wins decisively, and the 840M fills a niche that the M4000 cannot — extreme low power and portability.