NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by three years of architectural evolution and entirely different design goals. The data in the database reveals that while both are end-of-life products, their benchmark results show a generational chasm that goes far beyond simple clock speed differences. This analysis focuses strictly on the recorded measurements to understand what separates a professional workstation card from an early mobile integrated solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between these GPUs, and the results are decisively lopsided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 points against the GeForce 840M's 5,764 points. This represents a delta of 249.1% in favor of the Quadro, meaning the workstation card delivers more than triple the compute performance in this API. The margin is even wider in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro P2000 reaches 23,566 points while the GeForce 840M manages only 4,880 points, a difference of 382.9%.

These are not incremental improvements. The Vulkan result is particularly telling, as it shows the Quadro P2000 outperforming the older chip by nearly five times. For context, the Quadro P2000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests sits at 6,049, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GeForce 840M, with an average score of 5,322, sits in the 31st percentile. While the average scores appear relatively close, this is misleading because the GeForce 840M only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which are heavily skewed toward its weaker OpenCL and Vulkan performance. The Quadro P2000's average includes nine tests, many of which are legacy DirectX workloads where it still performs respectably.

The win count is 2-0 in favor of the Quadro P2000 across the shared test suite. What is striking is not just that the Quadro wins, but the sheer magnitude of the victory in compute-oriented workloads. The Vulkan delta of 382.9% suggests that architectural efficiency, not just raw resource counts, plays a massive role in the separation.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental gap between these two GPUs begins with their manufacturing processes and chip designs. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip built on a 16 nm TSMC process, packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. The GeForce 840M relies on the GM108S chip manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process, with just 1,020 million transistors spread across a 77 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the Quadro P2000 achieves 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GeForce 840M manages only 13.2 million per square millimeter. This is a direct result of the newer 16 nm node versus the older 28 nm process.

The architectural generations are entirely different as well. The Quadro P2000 belongs to the Pascal family, specifically the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation, succeeding Quadro Maxwell. The GeForce 840M uses the Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 800M generation, with its predecessor being GeForce 700M and successor being GeForce 900M. This places the Quadro one full architectural generation ahead.

Memory configuration further widens the gap. The Quadro P2000 ships with 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 840M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.02 GB/s. That is a bandwidth difference of roughly 8.75 times in favor of the Quadro, a figure that directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and compute tasks that stream data through memory. The memory clock also differs substantially: the Quadro runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) while the GeForce 840M runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are similarly lopsided. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The GeForce 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro provides 2.67 times the shading units, 4 times the TMUs, and 5 times the ROPs. These resource differences translate directly to the measured pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the GeForce, and texture rates of 94.72 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins every category where both GPUs have recorded data. In compute-oriented benchmarks like Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, the Pascal card's advantages in shading units, memory bandwidth, and architectural efficiency produce overwhelming margins. The FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS means the Quadro can handle roughly 3.5 times the single-precision floating-point work per second. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing.

The GeForce 840M does not win any recorded benchmark against the Quadro P2000. However, its profile suggests a different purpose. With a TDP of 33 W and no dedicated power connectors, it is designed for integration into portable devices where power draw is a primary constraint. The Quadro P2000, at 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, requires a more substantial power delivery system. The GeForce 840M's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs indicate it was built for laptops and compact systems, not workstations.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the Quadro P2000's recorded scores show it remains functional across older APIs: it scores 124 in Passmark DirectX 9, 47 in DirectX 11, 34 in DirectX 10, and 28 in DirectX 12. The GeForce 840M has no such legacy scores in the database, so its behavior in those APIs cannot be quantified. What is clear is that the Quadro was designed for sustained professional workloads, while the GeForce 840M's lower power envelope and smaller memory footprint point toward casual use in mobile form factors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 16 nm for the Quadro P2000 versus 28 nm for the GeForce 840M. Transistor counts are 4,400 million versus 1,020 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 77 mm². The base clock is 1076 MHz for the Quadro versus 1029 MHz for the GeForce, with boost clocks of 1480 MHz versus 1124 MHz. Memory size is 5 GB versus 2 GB, with GDDR5 versus DDR3 types and bus widths of 160-bit versus 64-bit. Bandwidth is 140.2 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s.

Shading units number 1,024 versus 384, TMUs are 64 versus 16, and ROPs are 40 versus 8. Pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s, texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro P2000 has an FP16 rating of 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GeForce 840M has no recorded FP16 data. TDP is 75 W versus 33 W, slot width is single-slot versus IGP, and the bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable device dependent. The Quadro measures 196 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the GeForce has no recorded dimensions.

The DirectX support differs as well: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the GeForce supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates are separated by almost three years: the Quadro P2000 launched on 2017-02-05, while the GeForce 840M launched on 2014-03-11.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,764 for the GeForce 840M, a delta of 249.1% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P2000 in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566 in Geekbench Vulkan against 4,880 for the GeForce 840M, a difference of 382.9%.

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

A: The Quadro P2000 has 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth with 5 GB GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus. The GeForce 840M has 16.02 GB/s with 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GeForce 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, compared to 384 for the GeForce 840M. This is a 2.67 times advantage for the Quadro.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W and requires a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GeForce 840M has a TDP of 33 W and no suggested PSU rating.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU in every measurable category where both have recorded benchmarks. Its 249.1% OpenCL advantage and 382.9% Vulkan advantage over the GeForce 840M reflect fundamental architectural superiority, not just incremental tuning. The Pascal architecture's 16 nm process, larger memory bus, and higher resource counts combine to deliver roughly 3.5 times the FP32 throughput of the Maxwell-based GeForce 840M.

The GeForce 840M's only advantage lies in its power efficiency and form factor. At 33 W with no power connectors and an IGP slot width, it is designed for compact portable devices. The Quadro P2000's 75 W TDP and single-slot form factor require a more robust platform. Users who need professional compute performance, high memory bandwidth, or modern API support should choose the Quadro P2000. Users constrained by power budgets in portable systems may find the GeForce 840M sufficient for basic tasks, but the benchmark data shows it cannot compete with the Quadro in demanding workloads. The choice depends entirely on whether the use case prioritizes raw performance or minimal power draw.