NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a narrow result. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6,816, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6,698. That gives the Quadro K4000 a 1.7% advantage, a margin small enough to be considered effectively a tie in real-world workloads. The GT 1010 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the recorded data, while the Quadro K4000 takes the single comparison.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the picture becomes more nuanced. The GT 1010 has an average benchmark score of 6,698 across its recorded tests (it only has the OpenCL result), while the Quadro K4000 averages 5,982 when its OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan results are combined. That average is dragged down by its Metal score of 4,166, which is substantially lower than its OpenCL score. The GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile. So while the Quadro wins the single head-to-head, the GT 1010 ranks slightly higher overall in the database's percentile distribution.

The nearest rivals for each card put these scores in context. The GT 1010's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M370, which scores 6,764, a 1% difference. The Quadro K4000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986, only 0.1% away, and the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987, also 0.1% away. The Quadro K4000's average is also within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970) and within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996), which is striking given the massive generational gap between those products.

The OpenCL result is the only test where both cards were measured under identical conditions. The 1.7% delta suggests that for compute tasks using OpenCL, the Quadro K4000 holds a slight edge, but it is not a decisive victory. The GT 1010's higher percentile ranking, however, indicates that its single recorded score places it better relative to the entire GPU landscape than the Quadro's multi-test average does.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins the only head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 6,816 versus 6,698 for the GT 1010, a 1.7% difference.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GT 1010 has an average benchmark score of 6,698, while the Quadro K4000 averages 5,982. The Quadro's average is lower because it includes a Metal score of 4,166, which is far below its OpenCL score.

Q: Which card ranks higher among all GPUs?

A: The GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile, making the GT 1010 rank slightly higher despite losing the head-to-head.

Q: What is the closest rival for each card?

A: For the GT 1010, the AMD Radeon R7 M370 is closest with a score of 6,764, a 1% difference. For the Quadro K4000, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is closest at 5,986, a 0.1% difference.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 have any benchmark advantage beyond OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K4000 also records a Vulkan score of 6,964 and a Metal score of 4,166. The GT 1010 has no recorded Vulkan or Metal results in the database.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s, while the GT 1010 has a pixel rate of 11.74 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and manufacturing processes. The GT 1010 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP108 chip, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The Quadro K4000 uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process gap is significant: the GT 1010 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². The Quadro K4000 has 2,540 million transistors on a much larger 221 mm² die, giving it a density of only 11.5M per mm². The Pascal chip achieves more than double the transistor density of the Kepler chip, which reflects the architectural efficiency gains from the newer process node.

The shading resources differ substantially. The GT 1010 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. That means the Quadro has three times the shading units, four times the TMUs, and three times the ROPs compared to the GT 1010. Despite this hardware advantage, the benchmark results show only a 1.7% gap in OpenCL performance, which suggests that the GT 1010's newer architecture extracts much more efficiency per compute resource.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. The API support shows another architectural difference: the GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GT 1010's newer architecture supports a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which matters for compatibility with modern applications.

The memory architecture also reflects the generational divide. The GT 1010 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K4000 uses a 192-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR5. The Quadro's wider bus gives it a bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s for the GT 1010. The GT 1010 compensates with a faster memory clock: 6 Gbps effective versus 5.6 Gbps effective for the Quadro, but the narrow bus limits its overall throughput.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The GT 1010 has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, while the Quadro K4000 has no recorded base or boost clock values in the database. The GT 1010's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Quadro's memory runs at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bandwidth are clear differentiators: the GT 1010 offers 2 GB with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K4000 offers 3 GB with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro's 192-bit bus is three times wider than the GT 1010's 64-bit bus. The compute specifications also favor the Quadro: it has 768 shading units versus 256, 64 TMUs versus 16, and 24 ROPs versus 8. The Quadro's pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 751.6 GFLOPS for the GT 1010.

Power consumption differs significantly: the GT 1010 is rated at 30 W TDP with no power connectors, while the Quadro K4000 is rated at 80 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The suggested PSU is 200 W for the GT 1010 and 250 W for the Quadro. The bus interface also differs: the GT 1010 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The GT 1010 has a shorter physical length at 147 mm (5.8 inches), while the Quadro is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. Both are single-slot cards.

Display outputs differ: the GT 1010 has 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0, while the Quadro K4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The release dates are far apart: the GT 1010 launched on 2021-01-12, while the Quadro K4000 launched on 2013-02-28. The Quadro K4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD. Both are end-of-life products. The GT 1010 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data presents a mixed picture. In the only head-to-head benchmark, the Quadro K4000 wins by 1.7%, but the GT 1010 ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution (38th versus 34th). The Quadro K4000 has substantially more compute hardware: three times the shading units, four times the TMUs, three times the ROPs, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. Yet that hardware advantage does not translate into a proportional benchmark lead, which suggests the GT 1010's Pascal architecture is far more efficient per unit of compute.

For users who prioritize raw compute resources and memory bandwidth, the Quadro K4000 is the stronger choice. Its 134.8 GB/s bandwidth and 3 GB memory capacity are significantly higher than the GT 1010's 48.06 GB/s and 2 GB. The Quadro also supports more display outputs with dual DisplayPort 1.2 connections. For users who prioritize architectural modernity, the GT 1010 offers a newer process node, higher transistor density, newer DirectX feature level, and newer Vulkan version. The GT 1010 also consumes far less power at 30 W versus 80 W and requires no external power connector.

The benchmark data does not support a decisive winner. The Quadro K4000 edges out the GT 1010 in OpenCL, but the GT 1010 holds a better percentile rank across all GPUs. The Quadro's additional benchmarks (Metal and Vulkan) show inconsistent results, with its Metal score of 4,166 being much lower than its OpenCL score of 6,816. The GT 1010 has no such inconsistency because it only has one recorded benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000 wins in scenarios that benefit from its hardware resources. Its 3 GB memory capacity and 134.8 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for workloads that need to move large amounts of data. Its 768 shading units and 64 TMUs provide more parallel compute and texture processing capacity. Its higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s) give it an edge in graphics-intensive tasks. The Quadro also wins in the direct OpenCL comparison, scoring 6,816 versus 6,698.

The GT 1010 wins in efficiency-focused scenarios. Its 30 W TDP versus 80 W means it generates less heat and requires less power. Its 147 mm length makes it easier to fit in compact systems. Its newer Pascal architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which provides better compatibility with modern software frameworks. Its higher transistor density (24.3M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm²) indicates a more modern design. The GT 1010 also achieves a better percentile rank (38th versus 34th), meaning it places higher relative to the entire GPU population.

The Quadro K4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, but the database does not record a launch MSRP for the GT 1010. The production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro's Vulkan score of 6,964 is its highest recorded benchmark, while its Metal score of 4,166 is its lowest. The GT 1010 has no Vulkan or Metal results, so its performance in those APIs is unknown. The decisive factor for most users will be whether they need the Quadro's memory bandwidth and compute resources or the GT 1010's architectural modernity and power efficiency.