NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload types. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, and the margin tells the story. In OpenCL, the K4000 posts 6,816 points against the GeForce 940M's 6,018, a 13.3% advantage. In Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 6,964 versus 4,549, a 53.1% lead. Every measured test favors the Quadro.

The GeForce 940M has no outright wins in the head-to-head comparison. Its average benchmark score of 5,284 sits below the K4000's 5,982, and its percentile rank of 31 trails the Quadro's 34. The 940M does hold one edge in the data: it reaches a higher pixel rate. At 17.57 GPixel/s, it surpasses the K4000's 12.96 GPixel/s. That suggests the Maxwell chip handles fill-rate-bound work more efficiently, even if overall compute scores fall behind.

The K4000's wins are consistent across API types. OpenCL is the closer contest, with the 13.3% spread showing both parts are in the same performance tier for general compute. Vulkan is where the Quadro separates itself, delivering more than half again the score of the 940M. For buyers prioritizing compute throughput or modern graphics API performance, the K4000 is the clear choice. For scenarios where pixel throughput matters more, the 940M's architecture offers a different strength, though it does not translate into a benchmark victory in the recorded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations built on the same process node. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC at 28 nm. The GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, also TSMC at 28 nm. Both are end-of-life products, but they represent distinct design philosophies.

The transistor counts differ notably. The K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a density of 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The 940M carries 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, achieving 12.6 million per square millimeter. Maxwell's higher density reflects a more efficient layout per area, though the K4000 has more absolute resources.

Compute resources favor the K4000 substantially. It has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. The 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K4000's larger configuration explains its FP32 throughput of 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus the 940M's 1,124.4 GFLOPS. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 51.84 GTexel/s for the Quadro against 35.14 GTexel/s for the GeForce.

Memory is where the designs diverge most sharply. The K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, capped at 14.40 GB/s. That is a 9.4x difference in memory bandwidth, a fact that likely explains the Vulkan score gap more than raw compute does. The K4000 also has a higher memory clock at 5.6 Gbps effective, while the 940M runs at 1800 Mbps effective.

Clock speeds differ in the other direction. The 940M has a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost of 1098 MHz. The K4000's base and boost clocks are not recorded, so a direct clock comparison is impossible. Power draw is close: 80 W for the K4000 and 75 W for the 940M. The K4000 requires a 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the 940M is an MXM module that takes no power connectors.

Form factors could not be more different. The K4000 is a single-slot 241 mm long, 111 mm tall card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The 940M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, meaning it has no fixed display configuration. The K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16; the 940M uses MXM-B 3.0. API support is nearly identical for DirectX and OpenGL, but Vulkan support differs: the K4000 lists 1.2.175, while the 940M lists 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL test is the closer of the two. The K4000 scores 6,816 against the 940M's 6,018, a 13.3% delta. That margin is meaningful but not overwhelming. It aligns with the FP32 compute difference: the K4000 has about 10.7% more raw floating-point throughput, and the OpenCL result exceeds that, suggesting memory bandwidth helps close the gap in the Quadro's favor.

Vulkan tells a different story. The K4000's 6,964 dwarfs the 940M's 4,549, a 53.1% delta. This is far larger than any compute resource difference would predict. The 940M's limited memory bandwidth (14.40 GB/s) and 64-bit bus likely bottleneck Vulkan workloads, which tend to be more memory-intensive than raw compute. The K4000's 134.8 GB/s gives it ample headroom, and the result shows it.

The average benchmark scores reflect the same order. The K4000 averages 5,982 across its three recorded tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), while the 940M averages 5,284 across its two (OpenCL, Vulkan). The K4000's percentile of 34 versus the 940M's 31 places both in the lower-middle range of all GPUs, but the Quadro sits consistently higher.

Rival comparisons reinforce the positioning. The K4000's nearest rivals include the Quadro K4000M (5,986, -0.1%), the FirePro W4100 (5,987, -0.1%), the Radeon HD 8750M (5,970, +0.2%), and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996, -0.2%). Those deltas are tiny, showing the K4000 sits in a tightly packed performance cluster. The 940M's rivals include the GTX 980M (5,308, -0.4%), the GeForce 930A (5,317, -0.6%), the GeForce 840M (5,322, -0.7%), and the GTX 760M (5,236, +0.9%). Again, small margins, but all in the same range.

The K4000 wins both head-to-head tests, but the shape of the wins matters. OpenCL is a competitive fight; Vulkan is a rout. Any workload that stresses memory bandwidth will favor the K4000 heavily. Compute-heavy tasks will still favor it, but by a more modest amount.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6,816 in OpenCL, while the GeForce 940M scores 6,018. The K4000 leads by 13.3%.

Q: How much faster is the K4000 in Vulkan?

A: The K4000 records 6,964 in Vulkan versus the 940M's 4,549, a 53.1% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Does the 940M have any performance advantage over the K4000?

A: The 940M has a higher pixel rate at 17.57 GPixel/s compared to the K4000's 12.96 GPixel/s. However, it does not win any recorded benchmark test.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The K4000 has 768 shading units, while the 940M has 512. The K4000 also has 64 TMUs versus 32, and 24 ROPs versus 16.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The K4000 averages 5,982 across its tests, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The 940M averages 5,284, placing it in the 31st percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro K4000 for nearly every performance scenario. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score, and holds a higher percentile rank. The 53.1% Vulkan lead is decisive evidence that the K4000's memory subsystem provides a substantial advantage in modern graphics workloads. The 13.3% OpenCL win is less dramatic but still consistent across compute tasks.

The GeForce 940M's only measurable strengths are its pixel rate and its clock speeds. At 17.57 GPixel/s, it out-paces the K4000's 12.96 GPixel/s, suggesting it handles fill-rate-limited scenes better. Its base clock of 1020 MHz and boost of 1098 MHz are recorded, while the K4000's clocks are not, so the 940M may have an edge in purely clock-bound situations. But those advantages do not appear in any recorded benchmark.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the K4000 is the stronger option for compute, graphics API performance, and memory-intensive workloads. It also offers a fixed display output configuration (DVI and DisplayPort), making it suitable for workstation setups. The 940M is an MXM module with no fixed outputs, so it only fits portable device designs where the system handles display routing. If the task involves memory bandwidth or modern API utilization, the K4000 is the clear pick. If the requirement is maximum pixel throughput in a low-power mobile form factor, the 940M has a niche, but the benchmark record does not back it as a winner.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | NVIDIA GeForce 940M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK106 | GM107 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | GeForce 900M |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 1020 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1098 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1404 MHz, 5.6 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 17.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 35.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 1,124.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 1,269 USD | Not recorded |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5,982 | 5,284 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 34 | 31 |