NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are both end-of-life graphics cards from NVIDIA, but they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The GeForce 930A is a low-power mobile-oriented chip from the Maxwell generation, while the Quadro 4000 is a workstation card from the older Fermi architecture. The data shows a single benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GeForce 930A scores 5317 against the Quadro 4000's 4979, a 6.8% advantage for the newer card. However, the specifications paint a more nuanced picture, with the Quadro 4000 offering a significantly wider memory bus and higher memory bandwidth, despite its lower raw compute scores.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce 930A is the better choice for general compute workloads, as it outperforms the Quadro 4000 by 6.8% in the sole Geekbench OpenCL test (5317 vs 4979). This score places the 930A in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits slightly lower at the 29th percentile. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL-based applications, the 930A's higher FP32 throughput (722.7 GFLOPS vs 486.4 GFLOPS) makes it the definitive winner despite its less professional pedigree.

However, the data also shows that the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is not without merit. Its memory subsystem is dramatically superior, with a 256-bit bus width and 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the 930A's 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s. This 5.6x bandwidth advantage suggests the Quadro 4000 would excel in memory-bound professional workloads, such as large texture loads or high-resolution framebuffer operations, even though its compute score is lower. The Quadro 4000 also has a higher pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s vs 7.528 GPixel/s), indicating competitive fill-rate performance.

Strictly from the data, the choice hinges on the workload. For compute-heavy tasks that leverage FP32 arithmetic, the GeForce 930A is the clear winner. For memory-intensive tasks where bandwidth and fill rate are critical, the Quadro 4000's architecture provides a compelling case. The 930A's 33 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient than the 142 W Quadro 4000, which requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a 6-pin power connector, versus the 930A's IGP slot width and no power connectors. The Quadro 4000's launch MSRP was 1,199 USD, reflecting its professional positioning, but the data shows its compute performance is actually behind the consumer-grade 930A.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the older Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The GF100 is a much larger and more complex chip, packing 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, but with a lower transistor density of just 5.9M per mm².

These architectural differences manifest in the compute resources. The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000, despite having fewer shading units at 256, offers more TMUs (32) and significantly more ROPs (32). The Maxwell architecture in the 930A is more efficient at FP32 compute, achieving 722.7 GFLOPS, while the Fermi-based Quadro 4000 manages only 486.4 GFLOPS. The 930A also has a texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s, exceeding the Quadro 4000's 15.20 GTexel/s, due to its higher clock speeds and more efficient shader design.

The memory technologies also differ completely. The 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus. The GDDR5 memory in the Quadro 4000 operates at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the 930A's DDR3 runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Despite the 930A's higher clock speed, the Quadro 4000's wider bus provides 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth versus just 16.02 GB/s for the 930A. This is a stark contrast that defines their respective performance profiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins decisively with a score of 5317, against the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 4979. This represents a deltaPct of 6.8% in favor of the 930A. This result aligns with the 930A's higher FP32 performance and suggests that the OpenCL workload in Geekbench is compute-bound rather than memory-bound, favoring the Maxwell architecture's efficiency.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The GeForce 930A's score of 5317 is nearly identical to the GeForce 840M (5322, deltaPct -0.1%) and the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, deltaPct 0.2%), indicating that within the GeForce lineup, the 930A is positioned at a mainstream performance level. It also edges out the GeForce 940M (5284, deltaPct 0.6%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, deltaPct -0.8%). These tight margins show that the 930A's performance is highly competitive within its class, with all rivals within 1% of its score.

The Quadro 4000's score of 4979 places it in a different performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970, deltaPct 0.2%), which is remarkable given the RTX card's modern architecture, and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, deltaPct -0.4%). The Quadro 4000 also beats the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, deltaPct -0.8%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931, deltaPct 1%). These comparisons show that the Quadro 4000's absolute performance is lower, but its memory bandwidth advantage (89.86 GB/s) would likely make it more competitive in bandwidth-sensitive tests, even though such tests are not present in the data.

The wins tally is 1 for the GeForce 930A and 0 for the Quadro 4000 in the head-to-head benchmarks. This singular result, while narrow in scope, consistently favors the newer card in compute performance. The 6.8% deltaPct is a moderate but clear margin, reinforcing the architectural efficiency gains of Maxwell over Fermi.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The most glaring differences are in the memory subsystem and power requirements. The GeForce 930A has a 64-bit memory bus, while the Quadro 4000 has a 256-bit bus, a 4x difference. This results in the Quadro 4000's 89.86 GB/s bandwidth versus the 930A's 16.02 GB/s, a 5.6x gap. The memory type also differs: DDR3 for the 930A and GDDR5 for the Quadro 4000, with effective clock speeds of 2 Gbps and 2.8 Gbps, respectively.

The compute resources differ significantly. The 930A has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, while the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units and 32 TMUs. The ROP count is 8 for the 930A and 32 for the Quadro 4000. Despite having more shading units, the 930A's FP32 throughput is higher at 722.7 GFLOPS, versus the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS. The pixel rates are nearly identical (7.528 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s), but the texture rates differ, with the 930A achieving 22.58 GTexel/s and the Quadro 4000 achieving 15.20 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The 930A has a TDP of 33 W and an IGP slot width, requiring no power connectors. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W, a single-slot design, and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 930A versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 4000. The Quadro 4000 has physical dimensions of 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the 930A has no listed dimensions due to its portable-device integration. Display outputs are also different: the 930A is "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

Architecturally, the process nodes are 28 nm for the 930A and 40 nm for the Quadro 4000, with transistor counts of 1,020 million and 3,100 million, respectively. The die sizes are 77 mm² and 529 mm², reflecting the Quadro 4000's much larger and older design. The release dates are also far apart, with the 930A launching in March 2015 and the Quadro 4000 in November 2010. The API support shows both cards supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 930A also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher compute performance in the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6.8% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's score of 4979. The 930A also has higher FP32 throughput at 722.7 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card offers better memory bandwidth, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 offers significantly better memory bandwidth at 89.86 GB/s, compared to the GeForce 930A's 16.02 GB/s. This is due to the Quadro 4000's 256-bit memory bus versus the 930A's 64-bit bus.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two GPUs?

A: The GeForce 930A is based on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108 chip, while the Quadro 4000 is based on the older Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip. The 930A uses a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 4000 uses a 40 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units, and does it translate to higher performance?

A: The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, compared to the Quadro 4000's 256 shading units. This contributes to the 930A's higher FP32 performance (722.7 GFLOPS) and its 6.8% higher benchmark score, despite the Quadro 4000 having more TMUs and ROPs.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 4000 has listed dimensions of 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, and a single-slot design. The GeForce 930A has no listed dimensions but is described as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, making it suitable for portable devices.