NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is Geekbench OpenCL, and the data shows a narrow victory for the Quadro 4000M. The Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points against the 940MX's 4939 points, a delta of 5.5% in favor of the older professional card. This is a meaningful margin in raw compute terms, though not a decisive one.

Context from the nearest rivals helps clarify what this score actually represents. The Quadro 4000M sits just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236 points) and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154 points), while it leads the AMD Radeon R7 M260X by 1% (5161 points). The 940MX, meanwhile, trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M by 0.2% (4855 points) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX by 0.5% (4867 points), while narrowly edging the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 by 1% (4893 points).

The delta between the two cards in this head-to-head is larger than the gap between either card and its immediate rivals. That suggests the 5.5% advantage is a consistent, reproducible difference rather than noise. The Quadro 4000M also has a second benchmark result in its overall profile—its average benchmark score is 5211, which equals its Geekbench OpenCL score since that is its only listed test. The 940MX averages 4844 across two tests (OpenCL 4939 and Vulkan 4749), meaning its Vulkan performance drags its average down below its OpenCL result.

When evaluating the 940MX's Vulkan score of 4749, note that the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan benchmark listed at all, and its API support shows no Vulkan version. This creates an asymmetry: the 940MX can be assessed across two different compute APIs, while the Quadro 4000M's performance profile rests entirely on its OpenCL showing. In that single shared metric, the Quadro 4000M wins by a clear margin that exceeds the typical rival deltas on either side.

# Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000M wins the only benchmark where both cards appear. Its 5.5% OpenCL advantage aligns with its higher memory bandwidth—80.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s—and its wider 256-bit memory bus against the 940MX's 64-bit bus. For workloads that scale with memory throughput, such as large data transfers or texture-heavy compute, the Quadro 4000M's architecture provides a structural edge that the benchmark result confirms.

The 940MX, however, wins in areas not captured by the single shared benchmark. Its Vulkan score of 4749 demonstrates functional support for a modern graphics API that the Quadro 4000M entirely lacks. The 940MX lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan entry. For applications that rely on Vulkan for rendering or compute, the 940MX is the only viable option between the two cards.

The 940MX also wins decisively on power efficiency. Its TDP of 23 W is less than a quarter of the Quadro 4000M's 100 W TDP. This is a massive difference in thermal and power requirements, making the 940MX far better suited to thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is scarce. The Quadro 4000M's 100 W draw demands more substantial cooling and battery capacity, which constrains its deployment to larger chassis.

Raw compute throughput favors the 940MX despite its lower benchmark scores. The 940MX delivers 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 638.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000M—a 38% advantage. Its pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s and texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s also slightly exceed the Quadro 4000M's 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s. The benchmark gap of 5.5% therefore understates the 940MX's theoretical compute capability, suggesting driver maturity or memory bandwidth may be limiting its real-world OpenCL showing.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip built on Fermi architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. The 940MX uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture, built on TSMC's 28 nm process. This process shrink from 40 nm to 28 nm is substantial, enabling higher transistor density despite similar transistor counts.

Transistor counts are nearly identical: 1,950 million for the Quadro 4000M versus 1,870 million for the 940MX. However, the die sizes differ dramatically. The Quadro 4000M's die measures 332 mm², while the 940MX's die is just 148 mm². This yields transistor densities of 5.9M per mm² for the Fermi chip versus 12.6M per mm² for the Maxwell chip—more than double the density on the newer part.

Core configuration reveals a different allocation of resources. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M thus emphasizes texture and pixel processing relative to its shader count, while the 940MX packs more shading units into a smaller memory footprint.

Memory subsystems are starkly different. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro 4000M runs a 256-bit bus at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) delivering 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 940MX uses a 64-bit bus at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 40.10 GB/s. The Quadro 4000M's bandwidth advantage is exactly double.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro 4000M has no listed base or boost clock, only its memory clock. The 940MX specifies a base clock of 795 MHz and boost clock of 861 MHz. This means the 940MX's 512 shading units run at a defined frequency, while the Quadro 4000M's 336 units have no published clock speed in the data.

Bus interfaces differ: the Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules and neither requires power connectors. The 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4 and both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro 4000M's generation is "Quadro Fermi-M (x000M)" while the 940MX belongs to "GeForce 900M."

# FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 on Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4939 on the same test. The Quadro 4000M leads by 5.5%.

Q: Does the GeForce 940MX support Vulkan?

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

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 4000M provides 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, exactly double the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the 940MX has a TDP of 23 W. The 940MX consumes less than a quarter of the power.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, compared to 336 on the Quadro 4000M. The 940MX also delivers higher FP32 compute at 881.7 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS.

Q: Are these cards from different architecture generations?

A: Yes. The Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip on Fermi architecture (40 nm process), while the 940MX uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture (28 nm process). The Maxwell chip has a die size of 148 mm² versus 332 mm² for Fermi.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |

| Chip | GF104 | GM107 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 861 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 512 |

| TMUs | 56 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 6.888 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 27.55 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 638.4 GFLOPS | 881.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 23 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) | GeForce 900M |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2016-06-27 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off between raw compute capability and modern feature support. The Quadro 4000M wins the only shared benchmark with a 5.5% margin, delivers double the memory bandwidth, and uses a wider 256-bit memory interface. Its nearest rival comparison places it among the GeForce GTX 760M and Quadro K3100M class, meaning it competes with mid-range mobile GPUs from a later era.

The GeForce 940MX, however, offers Vulkan support, a 38% higher FP32 throughput (881.7 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS), and a dramatically lower 23 W TDP compared to 100 W. Its shading unit count of 512 exceeds the Quadro 4000M's 336 by over 50%, and its Maxwell architecture on 28 nm achieves 12.6M transistors per mm² versus 5.9M on the Fermi chip.

Users who need maximum OpenCL performance and memory bandwidth in a professional mobile workstation should favor the Quadro 4000M. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and 5.5% benchmark lead make it the stronger choice for bandwidth-sensitive compute workloads, and its 32 ROPs offer better pixel throughput per memory channel.

Users who prioritize power efficiency, modern API compatibility, and raw shader throughput should choose the 940MX. Its 23 W TDP enables deployment in far lighter systems, Vulkan 1.4 support ensures compatibility with contemporary graphics APIs, and its 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute exceeds the Quadro 4000M despite the lower benchmark score. The 940MX's 28 nm process and smaller die also suggest better manufacturing efficiency.

The 940MX's percentile ranking of 28 versus the Quadro 4000M's 30 places both near the same performance tier overall, but the differences are architectural rather than marginal. Neither card is categorically superior; the Quadro 4000M leads in the single measurable compute test, while the 940MX leads in every raw throughput metric except memory bandwidth. The decision rests on whether the workload favors the Quadro 4000M's memory subsystem or the 940MX's shader count and efficiency.