NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

# The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, if narrow, outcome: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison available, beating the GeForce GTX 580M in Geekbench OpenCL by 6.3% (6816 vs 6389). Yet the story is more nuanced than a single win suggests, because the two cards occupy different performance percentiles relative to all GPUs, with the GTX 580M sitting at the 37th percentile and the Quadro K4000 at the 34th. This paradox—winning the head-to-head while ranking lower overall—deserves scrutiny.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute in a direct comparison, the Quadro K4000 is the data-backed choice. It delivers higher absolute performance in the tested workload, offers more memory (3 GB vs 2 GB), and does so at a lower TDP (80 W vs 100 W). However, the GTX 580M is not without its own arguments. It achieves a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, suggesting that its performance profile may be more competitive across a broader range of tasks not captured in the single head-to-head test. The GTX 580M also has a wider memory bus (256 bit vs 192 bit), which could matter in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, though the Quadro's higher memory clock (1404 MHz vs 750 MHz) gives it a substantial bandwidth advantage.

The production status of both is End-of-life, so this comparison is for archival or legacy-system purposes. The GTX 580M, released in June 2011, is the older design, while the Quadro K4000 arrived in February 2013. If you are choosing between these for a specific legacy workload, the Quadro K4000's OpenCL win is the only direct benchmark evidence, and it should carry decisive weight. If the workload involves the GTX 580M's higher percentile standing or its 256-bit bus, the data is less conclusive, and the choice becomes a matter of which specific performance characteristics matter more.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6816, beating the GeForce GTX 580M's 6389, a difference of 6.3%.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: The GeForce GTX 580M ranks at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4000 ranks at the 34th percentile. This means the GTX 580M sits higher in the overall distribution despite losing the direct head-to-head.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 580M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, but its higher memory clock (1404 MHz vs 750 MHz) produces 134.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute capability?

A: The Quadro K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the GTX 580M's 952.3 GFLOPS. The Quadro is approximately 30% ahead in raw floating-point throughput.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a TDP of 80 W, while the GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W. The Quadro also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 580M has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro K4000 lists Vulkan support, with version 1.2.175. The GTX 580M has no Vulkan API listed in its specifications.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations from NVIDIA, and the data shows a clear evolutionary leap. The GeForce GTX 580M is built on the GF114 chip using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process node at TSMC. The Quadro K4000, by contrast, uses the GK106 chip with the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process node, also at TSMC. This process shrink is significant: the GTX 580M packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Quadro K4000 crams 2,540 million transistors onto a smaller 221 mm² die, achieving a density of 11.5M per mm²—nearly double the density of the Fermi part.

The architectural shift brings notable changes in compute organization. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, exactly double the 384 shading units in the GTX 580M. Both have 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), but the GTX 580M has 32 ROPs versus the Quadro's 24 ROPs. This ROP deficit is a potential bottleneck for pixel-heavy workloads, but the Quadro compensates with higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s vs 9.920 GPixel/s) and texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s vs 39.68 GTexel/s). The Kepler architecture also brings Vulkan support to the Quadro K4000 (version 1.2.175), while the GTX 580M has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The transistor density improvement from Fermi to Kepler is a key architectural story. The Quadro K4000 achieves 11.5M transistors per mm², a 95% increase over the GTX 580M's 5.9M per mm², which explains how Kepler fits nearly double the shading units into a smaller die. The memory subsystem also reflects architectural evolution: the GTX 580M uses a 256-bit bus, while the Quadro K4000 uses a narrower 192-bit bus but compensates with a much higher memory clock (1404 MHz vs 750 MHz), resulting in 134.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s.

# Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several clear divergences between the two cards, beyond the obvious architectural generational gap.

Process and Die: The GTX 580M uses a 40 nm process with a 332 mm² die, while the Quadro K4000 uses a 28 nm process with a 221 mm² die. Transistor counts are 1,950 million and 2,540 million, respectively, with densities of 5.9M/mm² and 11.5M/mm².

Memory: The GTX 580M has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the GTX 580M and 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro K4000.

Compute Units: The GTX 580M has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. FP32 performance is 952.3 GFLOPS for the GTX 580M and 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the Quadro K4000. Pixel rates are 9.920 GPixel/s and 12.96 GPixel/s, respectively; texture rates are 39.68 GTexel/s and 51.84 GTexel/s.

Power and Physical: The GTX 580M has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP, is single-slot, requires one 6-pin power connector, suggests a 250 W PSU, and uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Quadro measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height; the GTX 580M's dimensions are not listed.

Display Outputs: The GTX 580M's outputs are "portable device dependent," reflecting its mobile MXM form factor. The Quadro K4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

API Support: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Only the Quadro K4000 lists Vulkan support (1.2.175).

Release and Status: The GTX 580M launched on June 27, 2011, while the Quadro K4000 launched on February 28, 2013. Both are End-of-life. The GTX 580M's predecessor is GeForce 400M and successor is GeForce 600M; the Quadro K4000's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it goes to the Quadro K4000. The Quadro scores 6816 against the GTX 580M's 6389, a delta of -6.3% from the GTX 580M's perspective. This is a meaningful margin—roughly equivalent to the difference between the GTX 580M and its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE, which scores an identical 6389 with a 0% delta.

The Quadro's OpenCL victory aligns with its compute specifications. Its 768 shading units and 1,244.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput give it a theoretical compute advantage over the GTX 580M's 384 shading units and 952.3 GFLOPS. The Quadro also has higher memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), which likely contributes to its OpenCL performance edge. The GTX 580M's advantage in ROP count (32 vs 24) does not appear to translate into a win in this compute-oriented benchmark, suggesting that OpenCL performance is more sensitive to shading unit count and memory bandwidth than to pixel throughput.

It is worth remembering the Quadro K4000 has additional benchmark scores for Metal (4166) and Vulkan (6964), which the GTX 580M lacks entirely. The Vulkan score of 6964 is actually higher than its OpenCL score of 6816, indicating that the Quadro's Kepler architecture performs well across different compute APIs. The GTX 580M's single benchmark limits the comparison, but the available data consistently favors the Quadro in compute workloads.

# Where Each One Wins

The data shows a single head-to-head win for the Quadro K4000, but the broader specification picture suggests distinct strengths for each card in different scenarios.

The Quadro K4000 wins in compute-heavy and memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its 6.3% OpenCL advantage is backed by 134.8 GB/s bandwidth, 768 shading units, and 1,244.2 GFLOPS. It also has Vulkan support, which opens up modern compute APIs that the GTX 580M cannot access. The 3 GB memory capacity (50% more than the GTX 580M) is an advantage for workloads with larger working sets. Its lower TDP (80 W vs 100 W) and single-slot form factor make it a better fit for constrained chassis or multi-GPU configurations.

The GTX 580M wins in scenarios where its higher overall percentile matters. At the 37th percentile versus the Quadro's 34th, the GTX 580M ranks higher across all GPUs, which could indicate better relative performance in non-OpenCL workloads not captured in the head-to-head. Its 256-bit memory bus and 32 ROPs give it a structural advantage in pixel-heavy rendering tasks, even though its raw pixel rate (9.920 GPixel/s) is lower than the Quadro's (12.96 GPixel/s). The MXM form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs suggest it was designed for mobile workstations, where its 100 W TDP in an MXM module might be the only option available.

For legacy system builders or upgraders, the choice comes down to workload. If the primary task is OpenCL compute, the Quadro K4000 is the clear winner—the only direct benchmark says so. If the task involves the GTX 580M's higher percentile ranking or its wider memory bus, the data is less definitive, and the GTX 580M's position in the overall GPU distribution at least suggests it holds up well outside the tested workload. The Quadro's Vulkan support and 3 GB memory make it the more future-proof choice for legacy systems, while the GTX 580M's mobile-oriented design may be irreplaceable in specific laptop platforms.