NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M are two end-of-life NVIDIA GPUs released within months of each other in 2012, but they answer different questions. The recorded data shows the desktop GeForce card winning the only head-to-head benchmark by a decisive margin: a 19.8 percent advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, 7171 points to 5986. The Quadro K4000M, a mobile workstation MXM module, counters with a far more modern 28 nm Kepler design, four times the memory capacity, and a lower thermal envelope. For raw measured compute performance the GTX 560 SE is the pick; for a mobile workstation form factor with professional-class memory headroom, the K4000M is the only option of the two that physically fits.

The Verdict

The database leaves little ambiguity on performance. The GTX 560 SE sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile, and the single head-to-head result mirrors that gap: the GeForce card scores 7171 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro's 5986, a 19.8 percent win for the GTX 560 SE. Anyone choosing strictly on measured compute throughput should take the GTX 560 SE.

The K4000M's case rests on platform and capacity rather than benchmark scores. It is an MXM module drawing power through the MXM-B (3.0) slot with no external connectors and a 100 W TDP, whereas the GTX 560 SE is a dual-slot desktop card requiring two 6-pin power connectors, a suggested 450 W power supply, and a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. The Quadro also carries 4 GB of GDDR5 against the GeForce's 1024 MB, a difference that matters for workloads that fit in memory at all. In short: desktop compute, choose the GTX 560 SE; mobile workstation integration, the K4000M is the only candidate here.

Architecture Differences

These two cards represent consecutive NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 560 SE is built on the GF114 chip, Fermi 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 500 generation and manufactured at TSMC on a 40 nm process. The Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip, Kepler architecture, from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation, manufactured at TSMC on a 28 nm process. The node jump is substantial in the recorded data: the K4000M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die for a density of 12.0M transistors per mm², while the GTX 560 SE fits 1,950 million transistors into a larger 332 mm² die at just 5.9M per mm².

The Kepler part's density advantage translates into a much larger execution resource count. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, against 288 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs on the GTX 560 SE. Its theoretical rates are correspondingly higher across the board: 12.02 GPixel/s pixel rate and 48.08 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 8.832 GPixel/s and 35.33 GTexel/s for the GeForce card. The K4000M also posts higher theoretical FP32 throughput at 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 847.9 GFLOPS.

Yet the measured result runs the other way, and the clock and memory data explain much of it. The GTX 560 SE runs its GDDR5 at an effective 3.8 Gbps over a 192-bit bus for 91.87 GB/s of bandwidth, while the K4000M runs a wider 256-bit bus at an effective 2.8 Gbps for 89.60 GB/s. The Quadro's base and boost clocks are both locked at 601 MHz, a conservative figure typical of its mobile workstation designation. Despite the Kepler part's larger resource counts, the Fermi card's higher memory throughput carries it to the faster measured OpenCL score. Feature support also differs in software: the K4000M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support while the GTX 560 SE lists none, though both report DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

Lineage differs too. The GTX 560 SE succeeds the GeForce 400 line and was itself succeeded by the GeForce 600 series, while the K4000M follows Quadro Fermi-M and precedes Quadro Maxwell-M. Both are marked end-of-life in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in benchmarks?

A: The GTX 560 SE. It won the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, 7171 to 5986, a 19.8 percent margin. It also ranks at the 39th percentile of all GPUs versus the K4000M's 34th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare against their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 560 SE's score is effectively tied with the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170, 0 percent delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7157, 0.2 percent delta), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, -0.4 percent delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222, -0.7 percent delta). The K4000M similarly clusters with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.1 percent), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, -0.2 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, -0.2 percent). Both cards sit in tightly packed performance neighborhoods, which makes the 19.8 percent gap between them meaningful rather than noise.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro K4000M, by a wide margin: 4 GB of GDDR5 versus 1024 MB on the GTX 560 SE. Memory bandwidth is nearly identical though, 89.60 GB/s versus 91.87 GB/s, so the GeForce holds a slight edge in speed while the Quadro holds a large edge in capacity.

Q: Can the Quadro K4000M be installed in a desktop?

A: No, not by its recorded interface. It is an MXM module using the MXM-B (3.0) bus and draws its 100 W TDP with no external power connectors. The GTX 560 SE is a dual-slot desktop card with PCIe 2.0 x16 and two 6-pin connectors.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The K4000M, with a 100 W TDP versus 150 W for the GTX 560 SE. The desktop card also carries a suggested power supply of 450 W; no such figure is listed for the mobile module.

Q: When were these cards released?

A: The GTX 560 SE came first, on February 19, 2012, with the Quadro K4000M following on May 31, 2012. Both are end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification of record:

• Chip and architecture: GF114 on Fermi 2.0 (GTX 560 SE) versus GK104 on Kepler (K4000M)
• Process node: 40 nm versus 28 nm, both from TSMC
• Transistors and die: 1,950 million on a 332 mm² die (5.9M/mm²) versus 3,540 million on a 294 mm² die (12.0M/mm²)
• Shading units: 288 versus 960
• TMUs: 48 versus 80
• ROPs: 24 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 8.832 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 35.33 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s
• FP32 throughput: 847.9 GFLOPS versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS
• Memory size: 1024 MB versus 4 GB, both GDDR5
• Bus width: 192 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 91.87 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s
• Effective memory speed: 3.8 Gbps versus 2.8 Gbps
• Core clocks: not recorded for the GTX 560 SE; the K4000M lists 601 MHz for both base and boost
• TDP: 150 W versus 100 W
• Form factor: dual-slot desktop card, 210 mm long, versus MXM module
• Power connectors: 2x 6-pin versus none
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0)
• Display outputs: 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a versus portable-device-dependent
• Vulkan support: none listed versus 1.2.175
• Predecessor/successor: GeForce 400 and GeForce 600 versus Quadro Fermi-M and Quadro Maxwell-M

Both share TSMC manufacturing, GDDR5 memory, DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, end-of-life status, and 2012 release dates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one test appears in the recorded head-to-head set, but it is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 560 SE scored 7171 against the Quadro K4000M's 5986, a 19.8 percent victory for the GeForce card. That single win accounts for the card's clean sweep: one benchmark, one win for the GTX 560 SE, zero for the K4000M.

The context around that number strengthens the verdict. The GTX 560 SE's 7171 places it in a dead heat with an Intel integrated solution, the Iris Pro Graphics P580, and within a fraction of a percent of cards like the GTX 970, Vega 8 Mobile, and GTX 750 in the database's aggregate scores. The K4000M's 5986 similarly matches the FirePro W4100, the desktop Quadro K4000, the GTX 770M, and even the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server in the database's averaged rival scores. The 19.8 percent gap between the two subjects of this comparison is therefore several times larger than the spread within either card's own rival cluster, making the GeForce win statistically clear-cut even on a single test.

The result is also consistent with the percentile placements: 39th percentile for the GTX 560 SE against 34th for the K4000M. The theoretical hardware favors the Quadro on paper, with more shaders, TMUs, ROPs, and higher peak FP32, but the measured OpenCL throughput favors the Fermi card, which sustains higher memory bandwidth and benefits from its desktop-class clock behavior against the Quadro's fixed 601 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 560 SE wins on measured performance. Every recorded benchmark point favors it, by 19.8 percent in OpenCL compute, and its database percentile is five points higher. For any workload where the recorded Geekbench OpenCL score is representative, general compute included, the GeForce card is the stronger performer. It also delivers slightly more memory bandwidth, 91.87 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s, and offers fixed desktop outputs: two DVI ports and a mini-HDMI 1.3a connection.

The Quadro K4000M wins on capacity, efficiency, and platform. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 is four times the GeForce card's memory, which matters for datasets and scenes that simply cannot fit in 1024 MB. It does this at a 100 W TDP, a third lower than the desktop card's 150 W, with no power connectors at all. It is the only option here for mobile workstations, using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, and it carries Vulkan 1.2.175 support that the GTX 560 SE lacks. Its Kepler architecture and 28 nm process also represent the newer design generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M rather than belonging to it.

The split is clean: desktop users chasing the faster recorded score take the GTX 560 SE, provided the case can fit a 210 mm dual-slot card and the power supply meets the 450 W suggestion with two 6-pin connectors. Mobile workstation users, or anyone whose workload exceeds 1024 MB of memory, take the Quadro K4000M and accept the measured performance deficit the data records.