NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M represent two distinct generations of mobile graphics, with the former built on Maxwell and the latter on Fermi. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the specific strengths of each GPU make them suitable for different tasks. The GeForce 940M takes the single head-to-head benchmark victory, while the Quadro 4000M offers a different set of architectural characteristics that may appeal in specific professional contexts.

Where Each One Wins

The primary differentiator is compute performance. In the single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce 940M scores 6018 against the Quadro 4000M’s 5211. This represents a 15.5% advantage for the GeForce 940M, indicating substantially higher raw compute throughput for general-purpose GPU workloads. The GeForce 940M also has a Vulkan score of 4549, a capability the Quadro 4000M lacks entirely, as its API list shows no Vulkan support.

The GeForce 940M’s wins extend to its average benchmark score of 5284, which places it at the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 4000M’s average score is 5211, sitting at the 30th percentile. This difference is marginal in percentile terms but consistent across the data. The GeForce 940M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, delta -0.4%), GeForce 930A (5317, delta -0.6%), and GeForce 840M (5322, delta -0.7%), showing it is tightly clustered with those parts. The Quadro 4000M’s rivals include the GeForce GTX 760M (5236, delta -0.5%), Radeon R7 M260X (5161, delta 1%), and Quadro K3100M (5154, delta 1.1%), indicating a similar competitive position but from a lower baseline.

For professional applications that rely on OpenCL compute, the GeForce 940M is the stronger choice. Its 512 shading units, compared to 336 on the Quadro 4000M, provide a larger parallel execution resource. The GeForce 940M also has a higher FP32 throughput of 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS on the Quadro 4000M, nearly doubling the theoretical single-precision compute capacity. This makes the GeForce 940M the winner for compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, simulation, or any workload that leverages OpenCL acceleration.

The Quadro 4000M, however, wins on memory bandwidth. Its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory yield 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the GeForce 940M’s 64-bit DDR3 bus delivering only 14.40 GB/s. This is a 5.5x advantage in raw bandwidth, which is critical for memory-bound workloads like large texture streaming, high-resolution frame buffers, or data-intensive compute kernels. The Quadro 4000M also has 56 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the GeForce 940M, giving it greater fill-rate capacity for certain graphics operations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has an average benchmark score of 5284, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211. The GeForce 940M also sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, one point higher than the Quadro 4000M’s 30th percentile.

Q: What is the performance difference in OpenCL compute?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 940M scores 6018 versus 5211 for the Quadro 4000M, a delta of 15.5% in favor of the GeForce 940M. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available in the data.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 4000M’s API list includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan entry. The GeForce 940M supports Vulkan 1.4 in addition to the same DirectX and OpenGL versions.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The GeForce 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M also has 2 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s — a 5.5x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, whereas the Quadro 4000M has 336. This contributes to the GeForce 940M’s higher FP32 throughput of 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The GeForce 940M has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W. Both use MXM modules and have no power connectors listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The GeForce 940M achieves a score of 6018, outperforming the Quadro 4000M’s 5211 by 15.5%. This is a substantial gap in a compute-oriented workload, reflecting the architectural differences between the two GPUs. The GeForce 940M’s Maxwell architecture, with 512 shading units and 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, is designed for higher raw compute throughput. The Quadro 4000M’s Fermi architecture, despite having 336 shading units and 638.4 GFLOPS, cannot match this level of parallel processing capability.

The delta of 15.5% places this comparison in context with other rival pairs. The GeForce 940M is 0.4% behind the GeForce GTX 980M in average score, and 0.6% behind the GeForce 930A. The Quadro 4000M is 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 760M and 1% ahead of the Radeon R7 M260X. When the two are compared directly, the GeForce 940M’s 15.5% lead in OpenCL is far larger than the differences seen among their respective nearest rivals, underscoring that this is a significant generational upgrade in compute capability.

In terms of average benchmark scores, the GeForce 940M’s 5284 exceeds the Quadro 4000M’s 5211 by approximately 1.4%. This narrower margin suggests that in some workloads, the Quadro 4000M’s superior memory bandwidth can partially compensate for its lower compute throughput. However, the head-to-head OpenCL result is the more direct measure, and it favors the GeForce 940M clearly. The wins tally reflects this: the GeForce 940M has 1 win in head-to-head benchmarks, while the Quadro 4000M has 0.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their core specifications. The GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip on a 40 nm process. The GeForce 940M has a smaller die size of 148 mm² compared to the Quadro 4000M’s 332 mm², yet it packs 1,870 million transistors versus 1,950 million on the Quadro 4000M. This results in a much higher transistor density for the GeForce 940M: 12.6M per mm² against 5.9M per mm².

Clock speeds differ as well, though the Quadro 4000M’s base and boost clocks are not listed. The GeForce 940M runs at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the GeForce 940M, compared to 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) on the Quadro 4000M. The memory type and bus width are also different: DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for the GeForce 940M, GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the Quadro 4000M. This yields bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s, respectively.

The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all differ. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate and texture rate reflect these differences: the GeForce 940M achieves 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 4000M manages 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,124.4 GFLOPS on the GeForce 940M versus 638.4 GFLOPS on the Quadro 4000M. TDP is 75 W for the GeForce 940M and 100 W for the Quadro 4000M. Both use MXM-B (3.0) interfaces and have no power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GeForce 940M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro 4000M uses the older Fermi architecture. This generational difference is reflected in the process node: 28 nm for Maxwell versus 40 nm for Fermi. The smaller process node allows the GeForce 940M to achieve higher transistor density (12.6M/mm² versus 5.9M/mm²) and better power efficiency, evidenced by its 75 W TDP despite higher clock speeds and more shading units.

The GeForce 940M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, with a release date of March 2015. The Quadro 4000M is from the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, released in February 2011. The GeForce 940M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M, and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The Quadro 4000M’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. Both are end-of-life products.

API support differs in one key aspect: the GeForce 940M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan entry. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GeForce 940M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4549, confirming its Vulkan capability, whereas the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan benchmark result. This makes the GeForce 940M more future-proof for modern graphics APIs.

The memory architecture is a defining difference. The GeForce 940M’s 64-bit DDR3 configuration is low-bandwidth but low-power, suitable for thinner notebooks. The Quadro 4000M’s 256-bit GDDR5 setup provides 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is unusual for its era and beneficial for professional visualization workloads that require large data movement. However, this comes at a cost of higher TDP and a larger die (332 mm² versus 148 mm²), reflecting the less efficient 40 nm process.

In compute capability, the Maxwell architecture in the GeForce 940M is more efficient per shading unit. The 512 shading units deliver 1,124.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 4000M’s 336 shading units deliver 638.4 GFLOPS. Per-shading-unit efficiency is roughly 2.2 GFLOPS per unit on the GeForce 940M versus 1.9 GFLOPS on the Quadro 4000M, a modest advantage that compounds with the higher unit count. The GeForce 940M’s pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s is more than double the Quadro 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s, despite the Quadro having twice the ROPs, illustrating the architectural efficiency gains of Maxwell over Fermi.