NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 and NVIDIA GeForce 930M are both end-of-life mobile and workstation-oriented GPUs, yet they represent divergent design philosophies from the same manufacturer. One is a low-profile professional card built for compute and display fidelity, while the other is a power-efficient integrated part for laptops. The benchmark data reveals a split decision: the GeForce 930M wins in OpenCL compute, while the Quadro P400 dominates in Vulkan performance. This analysis breaks down the architectural underpinnings, head-to-head results, and specification differences to determine which card suits which workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has an average benchmark score of 4684, which is 6.7% higher than the GeForce 930M's average score of 4388. The P400 also sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, just one percentile point above the 930M's 26th percentile ranking.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GeForce 930M wins the OpenCL test with a score of 5046, defeating the Quadro P400's score of 4249 by a margin of 15.8%. This is the 930M's only benchmark victory in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the result of the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro P400 wins the Vulkan test decisively, scoring 5119 against the GeForce 930M's 3729. This represents a 37.3% advantage for the P400, its only win in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro P400, built on a 14 nm Samsung process, achieves a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The GeForce 930M, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm node, has a significantly lower density of 13.2M per mm².

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two?

A: The Quadro P400 has a memory bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s using GDDR5 memory, which is 2.5 times the bandwidth of the GeForce 930M. The 930M uses DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of only 12.80 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 (single-precision) performance rating?

A: The Quadro P400 is rated at 641.0 GFLOPS, which is approximately 52% higher than the GeForce 930M's 421.6 GFLOPS. This suggests the P400 has a substantial theoretical compute advantage in single-precision workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². In contrast, the GeForce 930M relies on the GM108S chip from the Maxwell architecture, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm node. This older process houses only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Pascal part is denser and more modern, though the Maxwell chip's simpler design allows for a different core configuration.

Core counts present a notable inversion. The GeForce 930M has more shading units (384) and texture mapping units (24) than the Quadro P400, which has 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. However, the P400 compensates with double the render output units: 16 ROPs versus the 930M's 8 ROPs. This configuration suggests the 930M is designed for broader parallel throughput on simple tasks, while the P400 focuses on pixel output and geometry handling. Clock speeds reinforce this divide: the P400 runs at a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost clock of 1252 MHz, while the 930M is locked at 549 MHz for both base and boost.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Quadro P400 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, achieving 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth with a 1002 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective). The GeForce 930M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, operating at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) for a bandwidth of just 12.80 GB/s. This 2.5x bandwidth gap is critical for memory-intensive workloads. The P400 also supports a broader API feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the 930M's DirectX 12 (11_0), though both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The Quadro P400 is a single-slot card with a 30 W TDP, requiring a 200 W power supply, and measures 150 mm in length. It features three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The GeForce 930M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 33 W TDP, has no power connectors, and its display outputs are portable device dependent. The P400 also has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the 930M uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 connection.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark tests tell opposite stories, creating a balanced 1-1 split in wins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce 930M takes a clear lead with a score of 5046, outperforming the Quadro P400's 4249 by 15.8%. This is a significant margin, suggesting the Maxwell architecture's higher shading unit count and texture throughput (13.18 GTexel/s versus the P400's 20.03 GTexel/s, though the P400 is higher here) translate into better raw compute in OpenCL workloads. The 930M's 384 shading units likely allow it to process more parallel threads in certain compute patterns, despite its lower clock speed and memory bandwidth.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result dramatically. The Quadro P400 scores 5119, while the GeForce 930M manages only 3729. This yields a 37.3% advantage for the P400, a much larger margin than the 930M's OpenCL win. The Vulkan result aligns with the P400's architectural strengths: its 14 nm Pascal design, higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s), and 2.5x memory bandwidth. The P400's support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and its more modern feature set likely contribute to better low-level API performance, as Vulkan and DirectX 12 share similar design philosophies.

Context from each card's nearest rivals adds perspective. The Quadro P400's average score of 4684 places it 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320, both at 4657, and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628. It trails the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) by 0.9%. The GeForce 930M's average of 4388 is 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411), but 0.7% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360) and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335). These figures show both cards are clustered in the low-to-mid range of GPU performance, with the P400 holding a slight edge in aggregate.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of purpose. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications, 3D rendering, or tasks that benefit from high memory bandwidth and pixel throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the superior choice. Its 37.3% Vulkan advantage is decisive, and its higher FP32 rating (641.0 GFLOPS) and pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s) indicate stronger performance in graphics-heavy and modern API workloads. The P400's GDDR5 memory and 32.06 GB/s bandwidth are critical for texture-heavy scenes, and its single-slot, 30 W design with three mini-DisplayPort outputs makes it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups.

Conversely, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M is the better option for OpenCL compute tasks, where its 15.8% lead over the P400 is substantial. Its higher shading unit count (384) and texture unit count (24) give it an edge in compute shaders that scale with core count rather than memory speed. However, the 930M's IGP form factor, DDR3 memory, and lower bandwidth (12.80 GB/s) limit its applicability to portable devices where power efficiency (33 W) and integration are priorities. Its DirectX 12 (11_0) support is also a generation behind the P400's 12_1.

The Verdict hinges on the workload. Professional users running Vulkan-capable applications or needing robust display output should choose the Quadro P400. Users with compute-heavy OpenCL tasks on a laptop platform, where the 930M's integrated nature is an advantage, will find the GeForce 930M more suitable. The 1-1 win split and the P400's higher average score (4684 vs. 4388) suggest the P400 is marginally more versatile overall, but the 930M's OpenCL strength cannot be ignored.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P400 | NVIDIA GeForce 930M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1228 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1252 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.06 GB/s | 12.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.03 GPixel/s | 4.392 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.03 GTexel/s | 13.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 641.0 GFLOPS | 421.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 30 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2017-02-06 | 2015-03-12 |

| Dimensions | 150 mm (5.9 inches) length | null |