NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The data in the database separates these two NVIDIA parts into distinct performance tiers, despite their shared 28 nm TSMC manufacturing process. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000, a professional workstation card from the Maxwell 2.0 generation, holds a commanding lead over the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, a power-efficient mobile chip from the GeForce 900M series. The recorded benchmark results show a clear hierarchy, with the M4000 winning both head-to-head comparisons by a wide margin.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split is stark and favors the Quadro M4000 in every measurable category. The database contains two direct benchmark comparisons between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The M4000 wins both. In OpenCL compute workloads, it scores 19118 against the 940MX’s 4939, a 287.1% advantage. In the Vulkan API test, the gap widens further, with the M4000 posting 24640 versus 4749, a 418.8% difference. These are not marginal wins; they represent a fundamentally different class of hardware.

The GeForce 940MX finds its niche not in raw performance but in its physical footprint and power profile. Its TDP of 23 W and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable devices, as indicated by its display outputs being labeled "Portable Device Dependent" and its MXM Module slot width. The M4000, by contrast, is a single-slot card that requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply. The 940MX’s wins are contextual: it is the only one of the two that could realistically appear in a thin, battery-powered laptop. The M4000 wins outright on compute, rendering, and every benchmark score recorded.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs trace their lineage to NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, but they are built on different chips. The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip, while the GeForce 940MX uses the GM107. This is a fundamental difference in scale. The GM204 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million transistors per mm². The smaller GM107 contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6 million per mm². The M4000 is a much larger, more complex piece of silicon.

The execution resources differ accordingly. The M4000 fields 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The 940MX is limited to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. These numbers explain the raw throughput gaps. The M4000’s pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s. The 940MX manages only 6.888 GPixel/s and 27.55 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern: the M4000 delivers 2.573 TFLOPS in FP32, while the 940MX reaches 881.7 GFLOPS.

Memory is another major divider. The M4000 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s. The 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with bandwidth capped at 40.10 GB/s. Memory clocks also differ, with the M4000 running at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the 940MX. The M4000’s memory subsystem is roughly 4.8 times wider and delivers significantly more data per second to the GPU cores.

The feature sets diverge as well. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, while the 940MX is limited to DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the higher DirectX feature level on the M4000 gives it access to more advanced rendering techniques. The M4000 also offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the 940MX’s outputs are dependent on the host portable device.

The Verdict

The database points to a simple conclusion: the Quadro M4000 is the superior GPU by every measured performance metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average benchmark score of 5467 against the 940MX’s 4844, and ranks in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs versus the 940MX’s 28th percentile. The M4000’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon R7 M440 and NVIDIA GeForce MX130, are separated by less than 1% in average score, placing it in a tightly contested mid-tier bracket. The 940MX, meanwhile, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, also within 1% margins.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the M4000 is for users who need compute density, large memory capacity, and professional display outputs. Its 8 GB frame buffer and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth suit demanding visualization and compute tasks. The 940MX is for portable systems where the 23 W power draw and lack of external power connectors are non-negotiable constraints. Its performance is substantially lower, but it exists in a different physical category. The M4000 cannot replace a 940MX in a thin laptop, and the 940MX cannot match the M4000 in a workstation. The choice is dictated by form factor and workload, not by a balanced performance comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5467, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has an average score of 4844.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 24640, which is 418.8% higher than the 940MX’s score of 4749.

Q: What are the memory capacity differences?

A: The Quadro M4000 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the 940MX offers 2 GB on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the M4000 uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors, while the 940MX uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors.

Q: What is the power draw of the GeForce 940MX?

A: The 940MX has a TDP of 23 W and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices. The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1. The GeForce 940MX supports DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is limited to two tests, but both tell the same story. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, a general-purpose compute benchmark. The Quadro M4000 scores 19118, while the GeForce 940MX scores 4939. The delta is 287.1%. This means the M4000 delivers nearly four times the OpenCL compute performance. The 940MX’s 512 shading units and 881.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput simply cannot compete with the M4000’s 1664 shading units and 2.573 TFLOPS.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows an even larger divide. The M4000 posts a score of 24640, which is 418.8% ahead of the 940MX’s 4749. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and the M4000’s superior fill rates (49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate) give it a massive advantage in draw calls and geometry processing. The 940MX’s 6.888 GPixel/s pixel rate and 27.55 GTexel/s texture rate are bottlenecks that the API cannot hide.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite available only for the M4000, the pattern holds. It scores 6680 in Passmark G3D, 2660 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 673 in Passmark G2D. It also records 680 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These numbers, while not directly comparable to the 940MX, place the M4000 in a performance class that the 940MX’s two recorded scores (4939 OpenCL, 4749 Vulkan) cannot approach. The M4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M440 with an average score of 5483, a mere 0.3% difference, while the 940MX’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M at 4855, a 0.2% gap.

Specification Differences

The specifications that separate these two GPUs are extensive. The M4000 uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the 940MX uses the GM107 with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The M4000 has a transistor density of 13.1M per mm², slightly higher than the 940MX’s 12.6M per mm². The M4000’s base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, but its memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The 940MX has a base clock of 795 MHz, a boost clock of 861 MHz, and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations differ sharply: 8 GB versus 2 GB, 256-bit versus 64-bit bus, and 192.3 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000 has 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s for the M4000 versus 6.888 GPixel/s for the 940MX. Texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 27.55 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.573 TFLOPS versus 881.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical requirements are also distinct. The M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, is single-slot, uses a 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. It measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The 940MX has a TDP of 23 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and has no recorded dimensions. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M4000 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 940MX. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 on the M4000 versus "Portable Device Dependent" on the 940MX. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 support.