NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are both end-of-life mobile or workstation graphics solutions, yet they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The 940M, a Maxwell-based part from the GeForce 900M generation, faces the Quadro 4000, a Fermi-based professional card from 2010. While the 940M is a 28 nm part with 512 shading units, the Quadro 4000 uses a larger 40 nm chip with 256 shading units. Benchmark data, specifically from Geekbench OpenCL, shows the 940M holds a clear performance edge, scoring 6018 against the Quadro 4000’s 4979, a 20.9% advantage. The following analysis breaks down their architectural differences, benchmark results, and which user profile each card serves.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is significantly faster, scoring 6018 points compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 4979 points. This represents a 20.9% performance delta in favor of the 940M.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a substantial advantage here, offering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth thanks to its 256-bit GDDR5 interface. The GeForce 940M, using a 64-bit DDR3 bus, delivers only 14.40 GB/s, which is roughly six times lower.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro 4000’s GF100 chip contains 3,100 million transistors, while the GeForce 940M’s GM107 chip has 1,870 million. Interestingly, the GF100 achieves this with a much larger die size of 529 mm² compared to the 148 mm² of the GM107.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GeForce 940M leads with a pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 4000 manages only 7.600 GPixel/s. This indicates the 940M is better at handling high-resolution framebuffer operations.

Q: Are there differences in API support, particularly for Vulkan?

A: Yes. The GeForce 940M supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 4000 does not list Vulkan support in its specifications. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power consumption and form factor difference?

A: The GeForce 940M is a 75 W MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for laptops. The Quadro 4000 is a 142 W single-slot card that requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and suggests a 300 W power supply, indicating it is a desktop workstation part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture using a 28 nm process from TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. This generational gap is evident in transistor density: the 940M packs 12.6M transistors per mm², while the Quadro 4000 achieves only 5.9M per mm².

The core configurations diverge sharply. The GeForce 940M features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000 has half the shading units at 256, but matches the 940M in TMUs with 32, and doubles the ROP count to 32. This suggests the Quadro 4000 is optimized for fill-rate-bound tasks, while the 940M relies on its higher shader count for compute throughput. The 940M’s clock speeds are listed at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost, whereas the Quadro 4000’s base and boost clocks are not provided in the data.

Memory subsystems are a major differentiator. The 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a modest 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 also has 2 GB, but it uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.86 GB/s—a 6.2x advantage in bandwidth. The Quadro 4000’s memory clock is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the 940M’s is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro 4000’s higher bandwidth is typical of professional cards that handle large datasets.

Power and physical design reflect their intended environments. The GeForce 940M is a mobile MXM Module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, fitting into laptops where power is limited. The Quadro 4000 is a desktop single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with a 142 W TDP requiring a 1x 6-pin connector. The Quadro 4000 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the 940M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the 940M’s are portable-device dependent, while the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the superior performer in raw compute benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6018 places it well above the Quadro 4000’s 4979, a 20.9% lead. The 940M also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs, sitting at the 31st percentile compared to the Quadro 4000’s 29th. The 940M’s nearest rivals, such as the GeForce GTX 980M and GeForce 930A, have average scores around 5300, meaning the 940M is competitive with those parts. The Quadro 4000, however, is clustered near the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB and AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, which score near 4970-4998.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. The 940M is the clear choice for general-purpose compute, mobile use, and applications that benefit from higher shader counts and Vulkan support. Its 512 shading units and 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarf the Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS. The Quadro 4000, despite its age and lower raw score, offers a much larger memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) and double the ROPs (32 vs 16), which could benefit specific professional tasks that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require high fill rates. However, the data does not provide specific workstation application benchmarks to confirm this advantage. Given the 940M’s newer architecture, higher compute throughput, and better API support, it is the more versatile and future-proof option for most users.

Specification Differences

This section highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, omitting identical specifications.

• Architecture: GeForce 940M uses Maxwell; Quadro 4000 uses Fermi.
• Process Node: GeForce 940M is 28 nm; Quadro 4000 is 40 nm.
• Transistors: GeForce 940M has 1,870 million; Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million.
• Die Size: GeForce 940M is 148 mm²; Quadro 4000 is 529 mm².
• Transistor Density: GeForce 940M is 12.6M / mm²; Quadro 4000 is 5.9M / mm².
• Base Clock: GeForce 940M is 1020 MHz; Quadro 4000 has no listed base clock.
• Boost Clock: GeForce 940M is 1098 MHz; Quadro 4000 has no listed boost clock.
• Memory Clock: GeForce 940M is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective); Quadro 4000 is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective).
• Memory Type: GeForce 940M uses DDR3; Quadro 4000 uses GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: GeForce 940M is 64 bit; Quadro 4000 is 256 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: GeForce 940M is 14.40 GB/s; Quadro 4000 is 89.86 GB/s.
• Shading Units: GeForce 940M has 512; Quadro 4000 has 256.
• ROPs: GeForce 940M has 16; Quadro 4000 has 32.
• Pixel Rate: GeForce 940M is 17.57 GPixel/s; Quadro 4000 is 7.600 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: GeForce 940M is 35.14 GTexel/s; Quadro 4000 is 15.20 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: GeForce 940M is 1,124.4 GFLOPS; Quadro 4000 is 486.4 GFLOPS.
• TDP: GeForce 940M is 75 W; Quadro 4000 is 142 W.
• Slot Width: GeForce 940M is MXM Module; Quadro 4000 is Single-slot.
• Power Connectors: GeForce 940M has None; Quadro 4000 has 1x 6-pin.
• Suggested PSU: GeForce 940M has none listed; Quadro 4000 suggests 300 W.
• Bus Interface: GeForce 940M is MXM-B (3.0); Quadro 4000 is PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: GeForce 940M is Portable Device Dependent; Quadro 4000 is 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort.
• Dimensions (Length/Height/Width): GeForce 940M has none listed; Quadro 4000 is 241 mm / 111 mm / 20 mm.
• Vulkan Support: GeForce 940M supports Vulkan 1.4; Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed.
• Release Date: GeForce 940M is 2015-03-12; Quadro 4000 is 2010-11-01.
• Predecessor: GeForce 940M is GeForce 800M; Quadro 4000 is Quadro FX Tesla.
• Successor: GeForce 940M is GeForce 10 Mobile; Quadro 4000 is Quadro Kepler.
• Launch MSRP: GeForce 940M has none listed; Quadro 4000 is 1,199 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GeForce 940M decisively wins. The 940M scores 6018 points, while the Quadro 4000 scores 4979 points. This yields a deltaPct of 20.9% in favor of the 940M, meaning the 940M is approximately one-fifth faster in this compute workload. The result is consistent with their respective FP32 performance figures—1,124.4 GFLOPS for the 940M versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000—which show a 2.3x difference in theoretical compute throughput.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals reinforces the 940M’s position. The 940M’s average benchmark score is 5284, which places it just 0.4% below the GeForce GTX 980M (score 5308) and 0.6% below the GeForce 930A (score 5317). It is 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 760M (score 5236). This clustering suggests the 940M performs in line with mid-range mobile GPUs of its generation. On the other side, the Quadro 4000’s average score of 4979 puts it 0.2% above the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (score 4970) and 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (score 4931). It is 0.4% below the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (score 4998) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (score 5018). The Quadro 4000’s performance is therefore comparable to entry-level integrated and low-end discrete GPUs, highlighting its age.

There are no benchmark entries for Geekbench Vulkan for the Quadro 4000, and the 940M’s Vulkan score is 4549, but no comparison can be made. Similarly, the Quadro 4000 has no texture rate or pixel rate advantages in synthetic tests, as the 940M leads in both categories. The Quadro 4000’s only clear wins are in memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) and ROP count (32 vs 16), though these do not translate to a higher aggregate benchmark score. Overall, the data shows a single head-to-head victory for the GeForce 940M, with no wins for the Quadro 4000.