NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for direct comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A is limited to a single shared test, but the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the GeForce 930A scores 5,317. That translates to a delta of 259.6% in favor of the Quadro M4000 — a massive gap that underscores the fundamental performance chasm between these two parts.

This single head-to-head result is consistent with the broader benchmark picture. The Quadro M4000’s average benchmark score across all tested workloads is 5,467, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The GeForce 930A’s average score is 5,317, which puts it at the 31st percentile. On the surface, those averages look close — a difference of just 150 points, or roughly 2.8% — but that proximity is misleading. The Quadro M4000’s average is dragged down by a wide spread of results across many different tests, including some low DirectX scores, whereas the GeForce 930A has only one benchmark result contributing to its average.

Looking at the Quadro M4000’s individual scores reveals its strengths. In Geekbench Vulkan, it posts 24,640, and in Passmark G3D it reaches 6,680. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,660, and its Passmark G2D score is 673. The DirectX results are more modest: 113 in DirectX 9, 49 in DirectX 11, 33 in DirectX 10, and 26 in DirectX 12. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields 680. These numbers show a card that is clearly compute- and OpenCL/Vulkan-oriented, with legacy DirectX performance that lags its modern API results.

The GeForce 930A, by contrast, has no Vulkan, DirectX, or 3DMark results in the data — only the single Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,317. That makes direct comparison across APIs impossible, but the one overlapping test tells the story clearly enough: the Quadro M4000 is roughly 3.6 times faster in OpenCL compute.

When examining nearest rivals, the Quadro M4000 sits within 1% of several mid-range parts. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 averages 5,483, just 0.3% above the Quadro. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M averages 5,501 (0.6% higher), the GeForce MX130 averages 5,508 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Radeon 610M averages 5,444 (0.4% lower). These are all close competitors in average score, which suggests the Quadro M4000’s overall standing is more about consistency across workloads than peak performance in any single test.

The GeForce 930A’s nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight clustering. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M averages 5,322 (0.1% above the 930A), the GTX 980M averages 5,308 (0.2% lower), the GeForce 940M averages 5,284 (0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 averages 5,358 (0.8% higher). Despite the 930A’s single benchmark result, its average aligns closely with these parts, indicating that its OpenCL score is broadly representative of its overall capability.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The Quadro M4000 is built on the GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip with first-generation Maxwell architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with just 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die — a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The process node is identical, and densities are nearly the same, but the raw scale is completely different: the Quadro has over five times the transistor count and roughly 5.2 times the die area.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Quadro M4000 features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 930A has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.02 GB/s. That is a 12-fold difference in memory bandwidth — a gap that will heavily impact any memory-bound workload. The memory clock on the Quadro is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the 930A runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate on the Quadro is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s on the 930A. Texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS against 722.7 GFLOPS — a 3.56x advantage for the Quadro, consistent with the OpenCL benchmark delta.

Clock speeds differ as well. The GeForce 930A has listed base and boost clocks of 928 MHz and 941 MHz, respectively. The Quadro M4000’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data, so direct clock-to-clock comparison is not possible. The Quadro’s performance advantages must therefore be attributed to its vastly larger execution resource pool rather than any clock advantage.

Power and physical characteristics are also poles apart. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card with a 120 W TDP, requiring a 300 W suggested power supply and a single 6-pin power connector. It measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The GeForce 930A is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 33 W TDP, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions — it is designed for portable devices and relies on the host system for cooling and power delivery. The Quadro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the 930A uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support shows a subtle but important difference. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. However, the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The 12_1 feature level includes additional capabilities like conservative rasterization and higher-order tessellation, which the 930A lacks. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers four DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the 930A’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is substantially faster, scoring 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,317 for the GeForce 930A — a 259.6% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, while the GeForce 930A averages 5,317. Despite the Quadro’s much higher OpenCL score, the averages are close because the Quadro’s average includes several low DirectX results.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The 12_1 feature level is a higher tier of DirectX 12 support.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 930A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs manufactured on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The Quadro M4000 has a transistor density of 13.1M per mm², and the GeForce 930A has 13.2M per mm² — nearly identical density, but the Quadro’s die is far larger at 398 mm² versus 77 mm².

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The GeForce 930A has a 33 W TDP, while the Quadro M4000 has a 120 W TDP. However, the Quadro delivers significantly more compute performance (2.573 TFLOPS FP32 versus 722.7 GFLOPS), so efficiency depends on whether the workload needs the Quadro’s full capabilities.

The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is in a different performance class entirely. Its 259.6% OpenCL lead over the GeForce 930A is backed by a 3.56x advantage in FP32 throughput, a 6.6x difference in texture rate, and a 12x gap in memory bandwidth. For any compute-heavy workload, the Quadro M4000 is the clear choice.

The GeForce 930A’s strengths lie elsewhere. Its 33 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable devices where power draw and physical space are paramount. It has no power connectors, no slot width requirement, and its display outputs are device-dependent — all characteristics of a chip designed for laptops and compact systems rather than desktop workstations.

The Quadro M4000, with its single-slot design, 120 W TDP, four DisplayPort outputs, and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, is built for professional desktop environments. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth make it far better suited for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The 12_1 DirectX feature level adds modern rendering capabilities that the 930A cannot match.

For users comparing these two for a specific build, the choice depends entirely on the use case. If the workload involves OpenCL compute, Vulkan rendering, or any modern API, the Quadro M4000 wins decisively. If the requirement is an ultra-low-power integrated solution for a portable device, the GeForce 930A is the only viable option — the Quadro’s power draw and dimensions preclude its use in such form factors.

The nearest-rival data reinforces this split. The Quadro M4000 competes with parts like the GeForce GTX 765M and MX130, both of which are also low-power mobile or entry-level desktop chips. The GeForce 930A sits alongside the GeForce 840M and 940M. Neither card is a high-end performer — both sit in the 31st-32nd percentile of all GPUs — but the Quadro M4000 offers a far broader and more capable feature set for professional workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | NVIDIA GeForce 930A |

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

| Chip | GM204 | GM108 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | GeForce 900A |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

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

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 77 mm² |

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

| 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 |

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

| Shading Units | 1,664 | 384 |

| TMUs | 104 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 22.58 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.573 TFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not specified |

| 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) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | GeForce 800A |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Not specified |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 928 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 941 MHz |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm | Not specified |