NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and NVIDIA GeForce 940M represent two very different segments of the Maxwell era. The Quadro M4000, built on the larger GM204 chip, is a professional workstation card designed for sustained compute and multi-display output. The GeForce 940M, using the smaller GM107 chip, is a mobile consumer GPU aimed at mainstream laptops. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gulf between them, with the Quadro M4000 leading by 217.7% in OpenCL and 441.7% in Vulkan. This analysis breaks down the architectural, specification, and benchmark differences strictly from the provided data.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is in a completely different performance class than the GeForce 940M. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available, the Quadro M4000 wins both decisively. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 19,118 is 217.7% higher than the 940M's 6,018. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M4000 scores 24,640 versus the 940M's 4,549, a massive 441.7% lead. For any workload leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M4000 is the only rational choice from a pure performance standpoint.

The Quadro M4000 also holds a significant advantage in raw specification count. It features 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, compared to the 940M's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS versus 1,124.4 GFLOPS for the 940M. Consequently, the Quadro M4000 delivers a pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 80.39 GTexel/s, dwarfing the 940M's 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s. The Quadro M4000 is the clear winner for any task that stresses compute or fill-rate.

However, the 940M has its own niche. Its TDP is 75 W, which is lower than the Quadro M4000's 120 W. The 940M is also an MXM Module with no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices where the Quadro M4000's single-slot, 1x 6-pin requirement would be impractical. The 940M's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 980M (average score 5,308, deltaPct -0.4), indicating it sits in a similar performance tier as some older high-end mobile parts. In contrast, the Quadro M4000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (average score 5,483, deltaPct -0.3) and the AMD Radeon 610M (average score 5,444, deltaPct 0.4), showing it competes with integrated and low-end discrete solutions despite its workstation pedigree.

Who should pick which? From the data, a user needing maximum OpenCL or Vulkan performance for professional applications should select the Quadro M4000. A user with a portable device requiring a low-power, connector-free GPU solution should consider the GeForce 940M, accepting a substantial performance deficit. The Quadro M4000 wins 2 of 2 head-to-head benchmarks; the 940M wins none.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 in OpenCL compared to the GeForce 940M?

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 217.7% higher than the 940M's 6,018. This represents a more than threefold performance advantage.

Q: What is the performance difference in Vulkan workloads?

A: The gap is even larger in Vulkan. The Quadro M4000 achieves a score of 24,640, while the GeForce 940M scores 4,549. This results in a 441.7% lead for the Quadro M4000.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s. The GeForce 940M has a memory bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro M4000's bandwidth is over 13 times higher.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare overall?

A: The Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,467, while the GeForce 940M has an average of 5,284. This places the Quadro M4000 in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs and the 940M in the 31st percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: For the Quadro M4000, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (avg 5,483, deltaPct -0.3), AMD Radeon 610M (avg 5,444, deltaPct 0.4), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (avg 5,501, deltaPct -0.6), and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (avg 5,508, deltaPct -0.7). For the GeForce 940M, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (avg 5,308, deltaPct -0.4), NVIDIA GeForce 930A (avg 5,317, deltaPct -0.6), NVIDIA GeForce 840M (avg 5,322, deltaPct -0.7), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (avg 5,236, deltaPct 0.9).

Q: Which card uses a 256-bit memory bus?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses a 256-bit memory bus. The GeForce 940M uses a 64-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different chips from different Maxwell generations. The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip, which is part of the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip, based on the original Maxwell architecture. This architectural difference is fundamental to their performance disparity.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The GM204 chip in the Quadro M4000 contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The GM107 chip in the GeForce 940M contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. This means the Quadro M4000's chip has over 2.7 times the transistor count and over 2.6 times the die area. The transistor density is also slightly higher on the Quadro M4000 at 13.1M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm² for the 940M. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node.

The generations also differ. The Quadro M4000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation, while the 940M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. Their production statuses are both "End-of-life," but their release dates differ. The GeForce 940M was released on 2015-03-12, while the Quadro M4000 was released on 2015-06-28. The Quadro M4000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler, with its successor being Quadro Pascal. The 940M's predecessor is GeForce 800M, and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

The API support also shows a subtle difference. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GeForce 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This indicates a higher feature level for the Quadro M4000.

Specification Differences

The specification gap between the two cards is wide. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Memory bus widths are 256-bit versus 64-bit, respectively. The Quadro M4000's memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the 940M's is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Consequently, the bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s for the Quadro M4000 and only 14.40 GB/s for the 940M.

The compute units differ significantly. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro M4000's clock speeds are not listed for base or boost, but its memory clock is 1502 MHz. The 940M has a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1098 MHz.

Power and physical requirements are also distinct. The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, requires a single-slot form factor, and uses a 1x 6-pin power connector. It also suggests a 300 W PSU. The GeForce 940M has a 75 W TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor, and requires no power connectors. The Quadro M4000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the 940M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface.

The display outputs differ. The Quadro M4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The 940M's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro M4000 has physical dimensions of 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the 940M has no listed dimensions. The Quadro M4000's pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s, versus the 940M's 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro M4000 and 1,124.4 GFLOPS for the 940M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The available head-to-head data consists of two Geekbench tests, and the Quadro M4000 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the GeForce 940M scores 6,018. The delta is 217.7%, meaning the Quadro M4000 is more than three times faster. This is likely driven by the massive difference in shading units (1,664 vs 512) and memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s).

The Vulkan test shows an even larger disparity. The Quadro M4000 scores 24,640, whereas the GeForce 940M scores only 4,549. The delta is 441.7%, a lead of over five times. This suggests the Quadro M4000's architecture is particularly well-suited to the Vulkan API, possibly due to its higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_0) and superior raw throughput.

Beyond the head-to-head, the average benchmark score comparison tells a more nuanced story. The Quadro M4000's average score is 5,467, and the 940M's is 5,284. The difference is only 3.5%, which is far smaller than the OpenCL and Vulkan deltas. This is because the Quadro M4000's comprehensive benchmark suite includes DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, where its scores vary (113, 33, 49, and 26, respectively). The 940M only has the two Geekbench scores listed, which skews its average. The Quadro M4000's Passmark G3D score is 6,680, and its GPU Compute score is 2,660, indicating strong overall performance in those specific tests.

The nearest rival data places both cards in similar average-score territory. The Quadro M4000's rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (avg 5,483, deltaPct -0.3) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (avg 5,501, deltaPct -0.6). The 940M's rivals include the GeForce GTX 980M (avg 5,308, deltaPct -0.4) and the GeForce 840M (avg 5,322, deltaPct -0.7). This indicates that despite the Quadro M4000's massive wins in specific APIs, its overall average is pulled down by its varied DirectX performance, placing it in the same percentile band (32nd vs 31st) as the 940M. The wins count is 2 for the Quadro M4000 and 0 for the 940M in head-to-head tests.