NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and NVIDIA GeForce 940MX are both end-of-life GPUs, but they represent radically different design philosophies from two distinct eras of NVIDIA’s lineup. The Quadro 4000, a Fermi-generation workstation card from 2010, was built for professional compute and display reliability, while the 940MX, a Maxwell-generation mobile chip from 2016, targeted thin-and-light laptops with modest gaming and multimedia capabilities. The benchmark data reveals a near-total statistical tie in raw compute, but the architectural and feature splits tell a more nuanced story about where each part still makes sense.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show a razor-thin margin in OpenCL performance, with the Quadro 4000 edging out the 940MX by a 0.8% delta (4979 vs. 4939). In practical terms, this means neither card holds a meaningful performance advantage in general-purpose compute workloads. However, the win distribution is clear: the Quadro 4000 takes the sole head-to-head benchmark victory, while the 940MX has zero wins in the direct comparison. This does not mean the 940MX is obsolete—it simply means the single available test metric does not favor it.

Where the 940MX wins is in efficiency and modern API support. Its Maxwell architecture is built on a 28 nm process node compared to the Quadro 4000’s 40 nm node, and it consumes a fraction of the power. The data shows the 940MX has a TDP of 23 W versus the Quadro 4000’s 142 W—a massive six-fold difference. This makes the 940MX the only viable choice for portable, battery-powered systems. It also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed. For any workload that relies on Vulkan, the 940MX is categorically the only option.

The Quadro 4000, on the other hand, wins on raw memory bandwidth and professional display outputs. Its 256-bit memory bus delivers 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the 940MX’s 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s. It also offers dual DisplayPort outputs alongside DVI, whereas the 940MX’s outputs are labeled "Portable Device Dependent"—meaning the Quadro 4000 is better suited for fixed multi-monitor workstation setups. The Quadro 4000 also has double the ROPs (32 vs. 8), which historically matters for fill-rate-bound tasks, though the 940MX compensates with a higher texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s vs. 15.20 GTexel/s).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. If the workload is professional, desktop-bound, and requires sustained memory bandwidth or multiple display outputs, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the pick. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, offers 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, and carries the Quadro branding with a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD. Its 32 ROPs and 256-bit bus are workstation-class features that the 940MX simply does not have.

If the workload is mobile, power-sensitive, or requires modern API support, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is the only rational choice. Its 23 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops where the Quadro 4000’s 142 W power draw would be impossible. The 940MX also has more than double the shading units (512 vs. 256) and nearly double the FP32 throughput (881.7 GFLOPS vs. 486.4 GFLOPS), which means it can execute more parallel threads per clock. For users who need Vulkan support, the 940MX is the sole option—the Quadro 4000 lists no Vulkan capability.

Neither card is a performance leader. The Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the 940MX sits just below at the 28th percentile. Their nearest rivals reinforce this mid-to-low-tier positioning: the Quadro 4000 is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (delta -0.4%) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (delta -0.8%), while the 940MX trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (delta -0.2%) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (delta -0.5%). In short, both are legacy parts that only make sense in their specific niches.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is extraordinarily close. The Quadro 4000 scores 4979, while the 940MX scores 4939—a delta of just 0.8% in favor of the Quadro. This margin is well within run-to-run variance for most GPUs, so statistically, the two are equivalent in OpenCL compute. However, the win is recorded as a Quadro victory, and the data shows the Quadro 4000 is also 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which is a much newer and more powerful card on paper. This suggests the Geekbench OpenCL test may be heavily influenced by memory bandwidth or driver optimization, where the Quadro’s 89.86 GB/s and professional drivers give it an edge.

The 940MX’s best showing is in its Vulkan benchmark, where it scores 4749. There is no equivalent Vulkan score for the Quadro 4000, which means the 940MX is the only one of the two that can even run Vulkan workloads. This is a categorical win for the 940MX, not a marginal one. In OpenCL, the 940MX also has a second data point in its average benchmark score of 4844, which includes both the OpenCL and Vulkan results. The Quadro 4000’s average benchmark score is 4979, which is identical to its single OpenCL score.

Looking at the rivals, the Quadro 4000’s nearest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which scores 4931—1% behind the Quadro. The 940MX’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4893, which is 1% behind the 940MX. These deltas are all under 1.1%, meaning the entire competitive field around these two cards is packed within a 2% performance band. The takeaway: neither card wins by a margin that matters in real-world use, and the deciding factors are features, power, and form factor, not raw speed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is nominally faster, scoring 4979 versus the GeForce 940MX’s 4939 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 0.8% delta. This is a statistically negligible difference.

Q: Can the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX run Vulkan applications?

A: Yes. The 940MX lists Vulkan 1.4 support and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4749. The Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The GeForce 940MX is dramatically more efficient, with a TDP of 23 W compared to the Quadro 4000’s 142 W. The 940MX also requires no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 needs a 6-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000 has more than double the bandwidth, delivering 89.86 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, versus the 940MX’s 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are these cards comparable in shading performance?

A: No. The 940MX has 512 shading units and 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units and 486.4 GFLOPS. The 940MX is roughly 81% higher in FP32 compute.

Q: Which card is better for multi-monitor setups?

A: The Quadro 4000, which has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The 940MX’s display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by six years of architecture evolution. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, built on Fermi architecture with a 40 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The 940MX uses the GM107 chip, based on Maxwell architecture, on a 28 nm node also from TSMC. It has 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 12.6M per mm². The smaller, denser Maxwell chip explains the 940MX’s superior power efficiency.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 89.86 GB/s. The 940MX also uses 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a 64-bit bus, halving the bandwidth to 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory clock is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the 940MX’s is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)—the 940MX’s faster memory speed partially compensates for its narrower bus.

Compute resources are distributed differently. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.20 GTexel/s. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs, with a lower pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s and a higher texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s. The 940MX’s higher shader count and texture rate make it better for pixel-shader-heavy workloads, while the Quadro’s higher ROP count and bandwidth favor fill-rate-bound tasks.

The bus interfaces and power delivery also differ. The Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro is a single-slot card, 241 mm long, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU and a 6-pin connector. The 940MX is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, reflecting its mobile design. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6; the 940MX adds Vulkan 1.4 to that same DirectX and OpenGL feature set. Production status for both is end-of-life, with the Quadro 4000 released in November 2010 and the 940MX in June 2016.