NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they come from different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the GeForce 930A edging out the Quadro 4000M by a narrow margin in OpenCL performance. The GeForce 930A scores 5,317 points, while the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points, a delta of 2% in favor of the newer Maxwell-based part. This places both firmly in the lower-midrange of the benchmark database, with the 930A at the 31st percentile and the 4000M at the 30th percentile of all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. Here, the GeForce 930A wins with a score of 5,317 against the Quadro 4000M’s 5,211. The 2% delta is small, suggesting that in raw compute throughput, these two are effectively peers. However, the context of their rival pools reveals how each fits into the broader landscape. The 930A’s nearest rival is the GeForce 840M, which scores 5,322, placing the 930A essentially at parity (delta of -0.1%). It also sits just 0.2% above the GeForce GTX 980M, a much higher-tier part, and 0.6% above the GeForce 940M. This suggests the 930A’s compute score is not indicative of its gaming-class positioning; it is simply a data point in a narrow band.

For the Quadro 4000M, its closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 760M, which scores 5,236, meaning the 4000M trails by 0.5%. It is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, and 1.1% ahead of the Quadro K3100M. Notably, the 4000M is 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M, a mainstream part. The 2% difference between the 930A and 4000M is therefore within the noise of their respective rival clusters. Neither card has a decisive compute advantage; the win for the 930A is marginal and does not suggest a clear performance tier separation.

The Verdict

From the data, the GeForce 930A is the better choice for general compute workloads, as it holds a 2% lead over the Quadro 4000M in the only benchmark recorded. It also has a slightly higher percentile ranking (31st vs. 30th), reinforcing the notion that it is marginally more capable in OpenCL tasks. However, the practical difference is negligible for most users; a 2% delta in a synthetic test rarely translates to a perceptible real-world difference.

The Quadro 4000M, despite losing the head-to-head, should not be dismissed. Its rival pool shows it trading blows with parts like the GeForce GTX 760M and the Quadro K3100M, indicating it holds its own against similar-generation hardware. The decision between these two should hinge on other factors, such as driver validation and platform compatibility, which the benchmark data cannot capture. If the priority is pure compute score, the 930A wins. If the priority is an older professional-grade platform with a different feature set, the 4000M may still be relevant. The data does not support a landslide victory for either; it supports a narrow, compute-based win for the 930A.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GeForce 930A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per mm². This is a modern, power-efficient design.

In contrast, the Quadro 4000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, with a transistor density of only 5.9 million per mm². The Fermi design is older, larger, and less dense. This architectural gap explains many of the specification differences: the 930A achieves higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, while the 4000M relies on a wider memory bus and more texture units to compensate.

The 930A has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The 4000M has 336 shading units, but 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs. This means the 4000M is designed for higher fill-rate and texture-heavy workloads, while the 930A has more shader throughput per clock. The 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 4000M also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the 930A more future-proof for API compatibility.

Specification Differences

The specifications show a clear split between the two designs. The GeForce 930A has a base clock of 928 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz, with memory clocked at 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Its memory configuration is 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M has no listed base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). It uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a massive difference: the 4000M has nearly 5 times the memory bandwidth of the 930A, which is critical for certain workloads.

The compute rates also differ. The 930A achieves a pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 722.7 GFLOPS. The 4000M has a pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s (lower) but a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s (higher), with FP32 of 638.4 GFLOPS (lower). So, the 930A is faster in pixel fill and FP32 compute, while the 4000M leads in texture fill and memory bandwidth.

Power consumption is a major divider. The 930A has a TDP of 33 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The 4000M has a TDP of 100 W and is an MXM Module with no power connectors. The 930A uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the 4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 930A is from the GeForce 900A generation, released on 2015-03-12, while the 4000M is from the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, released on 2011-02-21. The 930A’s predecessor is the GeForce 800A, while the 4000M’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The GeForce 930A leads with 722.7 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS, a difference of about 13% in favor of the 930A.

Q: Is the Quadro 4000M better for memory-bandwidth-heavy tasks?

A: Yes. The 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth via a 256-bit GDDR5 interface, compared to the 930A’s 16.02 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus. This is a 5x advantage for the 4000M.

Q: Does the GeForce 930A support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the 930A lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed in its API specifications.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W, making it far more power-efficient than the Quadro 4000M, which has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 930A is nearly identical to the GeForce 840M (delta of -0.1%) and slightly above the GeForce GTX 980M (0.2%). The 4000M trails the GeForce GTX 760M by 0.5% and leads the AMD Radeon R7 M260X by 1%.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The 930A was released in 2015, and the 4000M in 2011.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930A wins in compute-heavy scenarios that rely on shader throughput and pixel fill. Its FP32 rate of 722.7 GFLOPS is 13% higher than the 4000M’s 638.4 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s beats the 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s. It also has a significant power advantage, drawing only 33 W versus 100 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light systems with IGP form factors. For users running OpenCL workloads that are not bandwidth-limited, the 930A’s 2% benchmark lead and higher percentile ranking make it the compute pick.

The Quadro 4000M wins in texture-heavy and memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks. Its texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s exceeds the 930A’s 22.58 GTexel/s, and its 80.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth is a massive advantage for large datasets or high-resolution texture streaming. The 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory are hallmarks of a design aimed at professional visualization, where memory throughput often trumps raw shader count. For legacy applications that favor Fermi’s architecture or require MXM-B module compatibility, the 4000M holds the edge.

In terms of API support, the 930A is the more versatile option due to Vulkan 1.4 support, which the 4000M lacks. This could matter for modern compute frameworks that leverage Vulkan. However, for users locked into older professional software stacks that were validated on Fermi, the 4000M’s driver ecosystem may be more relevant. The data shows a clear split: the 930A for compute efficiency and modern APIs, the 4000M for bandwidth and texture throughput. Neither is a universal winner, but the 930A’s benchmark victory and lower power draw make it the more balanced recommendation for general use.