NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the stronger GPU overall. Its average benchmark score of 5982 places it 12.5% above the GeForce 930A's 5317, and it wins the only shared head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, by 28.2%. The Quadro K4000 also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs (34th percentile versus 31st), meaning it outperforms a larger share of the database's tracked hardware. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy workloads should select the Quadro K4000 without hesitation.

The GeForce 930A is not without a role, however. Its 33 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP slot width make it a low-power, portable-device part. The data shows it belongs in thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals trump raw performance. The Quadro K4000, by contrast, demands a 250 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin connector, so it is a desktop workstation card with real power requirements. The verdict splits cleanly: pick the Quadro K4000 for performance, pick the GeForce 930A for efficiency and compactness.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs come from NVIDIA and are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but they belong to different architectures and generations. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip under the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip under the Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900A generation.

The transistor counts and die sizes diverge sharply. The Quadro K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The GeForce 930A integrates 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2M per mm². The Maxwell chip is more efficient per square millimeter, but the Kepler chip has far more total silicon and transistors to work with.

Memory architecture differs completely. The Quadro K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 16.02 GB/s. That is an 8.4x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro K4000, a gap that directly explains its compute superiority. The Quadro also has a higher memory clock at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) versus 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the 930A.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput reaches 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 722.7 GFLOPS for the 930A. The Quadro K4000 is ahead in every raw throughput metric.

The GeForce 930A has a base clock of 928 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz, while the Quadro K4000's clocks are not recorded for base or boost. The 930A also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. API support is similar: both reach DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.2.175 while the 930A lists Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000 wins everywhere performance matters. It has the only recorded Geekbench Vulkan score (6964) and the only Geekbench Metal score (4166), both absent from the GeForce 930A's records. In the shared OpenCL test, the Quadro scores 6816 versus 5317, a 28.2% lead. The Quadro's higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, and greater FP32 throughput make it the clear choice for GPU compute, rendering, and any workload that scales with parallel throughput.

The GeForce 930A wins on power and physical integration. Its 33 W TDP is less than half the Quadro's 80 W, and it requires no power connectors, whereas the Quadro needs a 6-pin connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. The 930A is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with dimensions listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for laptops and small form factors. The Quadro is a single-slot desktop card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. For embedded or mobile systems where power draw and space are the limiting factors, the 930A is the only viable choice.

The use-case split is therefore structural. The Quadro K4000 is a workstation card for desktops with a power supply and expansion slot to spare. The GeForce 930A is a low-power mobile part for portable devices. Neither can substitute for the other in the opposite scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000, with an average benchmark score of 5982, compared to 5317 for the GeForce 930A.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro K4000 scores 6816 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GeForce 930A scores 5317, a 28.2% difference in favor of the Quadro.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 930A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The GeForce 930A has a 33 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP and needs a single 6-pin connector with a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are the two GPUs from the same architecture?

A: No. The Quadro K4000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip, while the GeForce 930A uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for Vulkan?

A: The GeForce 930A lists Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one shared benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K4000 scores 6816, and the GeForce 930A scores 5317. The delta is 28.2%, a substantial margin that reflects the Quadro's overwhelming hardware advantages. The Quadro has 2.5x the memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s), twice the shading units (768 versus 384), and 72% higher FP32 throughput (1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS). These numbers translate directly into the OpenCL score gap.

The Quadro K4000 also holds two exclusive benchmark records: Geekbench Metal at 4166 and Geekbench Vulkan at 6964. The GeForce 930A has no recorded scores for those tests, so no head-to-head comparison is possible. Still, the presence of those scores in the Quadro's record indicates broader test coverage and a stronger overall profile.

The GeForce 930A's nearest rivals in the database are all close to its average score. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, scores 5322, a delta of -0.1%. The GeForce GTX 980M scores 5308 (0.2% delta), the GeForce 940M scores 5284 (0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358 (-0.8% delta). This cluster shows the 930A sits in a tightly packed mid-low performance band, within 1% of several other mobile GPUs. The Quadro K4000's nearest rivals are similarly close: the Quadro K4000M scores 5986 (-0.1% delta), the AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5987 (-0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970 (0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996 (-0.2% delta). Notably, the Quadro K4000 sits just 0.2% below a modern RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, despite the massive generational gap, though that server card's score is anomalously low compared to its class.

The 28.2% OpenCL lead for the Quadro K4000 is the single largest recorded differential between these two parts. No benchmark shows the GeForce 930A ahead. The data consistently favors the Quadro K4000 across every measured dimension.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every hardware field. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the 930A (13.2M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²), but total resources are far greater on the Quadro.

Memory: the Quadro has 3 GB of GDDR5 with a 192-bit bus and 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 930A has 2 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro's memory clock is 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective); the 930A's is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The 930A has a recorded base clock of 928 MHz and boost clock of 941 MHz; the Quadro has no base or boost clock recorded.

Compute resources: the Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs; the 930A has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rates are 12.96 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 51.84 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Power and physical design: the Quadro has an 80 W TDP, is single-slot, requires a 6-pin connector, and has a 250 W suggested PSU. The 930A has a 33 W TDP, is an IGP, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The Quadro is 241 mm long and 111 mm high; the 930A has no dimensions listed and is marked as portable-device dependent.

Bus and outputs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16 with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The 930A uses PCIe 3.0 x8 with outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent." API support differs only in Vulkan version: 1.2.175 for the Quadro versus 1.4 for the 930A. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Release dates differ by roughly two years: the Quadro launched on 2013-02-28, the 930A on 2015-03-12. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD; the 930A has no recorded launch MSRP.