NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits cleanly along generational lines. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, dominates every benchmark category where both cards have recorded scores. Its sole head-to-head victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it posts a score of 19,118 against the GeForce GTX 580M's 6,389. That is a massive 66.6% advantage, meaning the Quadro delivers roughly three times the compute throughput in that specific workload.

The GeForce GTX 580M, despite being the older Fermi 2.0 design, holds no benchmark wins in the database. Its average benchmark score sits at 6,389, which places it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, has a lower average score of 5,467 across all its recorded tests, landing in the 32nd percentile. This apparent contradiction, a lower average but a dominant OpenCL result, stems from the Quadro's broader test suite, which includes several legacy DirectX and compute workloads where it scores much lower than its OpenCL peak.

For raw compute and modern API performance, the Quadro M4000 is the clear winner. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,640 further cements this position, showing strength in cross-platform graphics workloads. The GTX 580M has no recorded Vulkan score, no DirectX 12 benchmark, and no compute test beyond OpenCL. The data suggests the Quadro M4000 was designed for professional workloads that stress compute and modern rendering paths, while the GTX 580M was a mobile gaming part from an earlier era.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTX 580M averages 6,389 across its recorded tests, while the Quadro M4000 averages 5,467. However, the Quadro's average includes a wider range of tests, including low DirectX legacy scores, whereas the GTX 580M only has a single OpenCL result.

Q: How does the Quadro M4000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M4000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M440, which scores 5,483, a 0.3% difference. It also sits close to the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444, 0.4% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501, 0.6% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508, 0.7% difference). The GTX 580M's closest rival is the GeForce GTX 460 SE at an identical 6,389 score.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 580M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, doubling bandwidth to 192.3 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports more modern DirectX features?

A: The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 580M has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: How do the two compare in pixel and texture throughput?

A: The Quadro M4000 delivers 49.47 GPixel/s and 80.39 GTexel/s. The GTX 580M manages 9.920 GPixel/s and 39.68 GTexel/s. The Quadro is roughly 5 times faster in pixel rate and 2 times faster in texture rate.

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The GTX 580M uses an MXM Module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card, 241 mm long, with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a single 6-pin power connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the GTX 580M's 6,389. The delta is 66.6%, meaning the Quadro is nearly three times faster. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational leap. The GTX 580M's 384 shading units and 64 texture units simply cannot compete with the Quadro's 1,664 shading units and 104 texture units in a compute-heavy workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the Quadro M4000, its Geekbench Vulkan result of 24,640 shows even higher throughput in a modern cross-platform API. Its Passmark G3D score of 6,680 is respectable for professional use, while its Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,660 indicates solid general-purpose compute. The GTX 580M has no equivalent scores, so we cannot make a direct comparison, but the OpenCL result alone suggests the Quadro would win decisively in any compute or modern rendering scenario.

The GTX 580M's single score of 6,389 in OpenCL places it exactly even with the GeForce GTX 460 SE, a desktop card from the same Fermi generation. The Quadro M4000, meanwhile, sits 0.3% behind the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell in its nearest-rival table, which is remarkable given the massive architectural gap between Maxwell 2.0 and Blackwell. This suggests the Quadro's OpenCL performance is still competitive even against much newer hardware, at least in this specific benchmark.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The memory subsystem is a clear differentiator: the GTX 580M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro M4000 offers 8 GB with 192.3 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the Quadro's higher memory clock (1,502 MHz effective 6 Gbps) versus the GTX's 750 MHz effective 3 Gbps doubles the bandwidth.

Compute resources scale dramatically. The GTX 580M has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This translates to 952.3 GFLOPS FP32 for the GTX versus 2.573 TFLOPS for the Quadro, a 2.7x advantage in raw floating-point throughput. Pixel rate jumps from 9.920 GPixel/s to 49.47 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 39.68 GTexel/s to 80.39 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design also differ. The GTX 580M draws 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors. The Quadro M4000 draws 120 W, requires a 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The Quadro is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm, with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GTX 580M's outputs are portable-device dependent, reflecting its mobile origin.

API support differs as well. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 580M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan. The Quadro's newer feature set makes it more suitable for modern applications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. Fermi 2.0 was designed for the GeForce 500M generation, released in mid-2011.

The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. Maxwell 2.0 is a much newer design, released in mid-2015 as part of the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. The 28 nm node allows more than double the transistor density, which explains the Quadro's superior compute and memory throughput.

The GTX 580M's predecessor is the GeForce 400M series, and its successor is the GeForce 600M series. The Quadro M4000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler, and its successor is Quadro Pascal. These lineage differences highlight the generational jump: Fermi 2.0 was NVIDIA's second unified shader architecture, while Maxwell 2.0 refined power efficiency and compute throughput significantly.

Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores, as those features did not exist in their respective eras. The GTX 580M has no recorded Vulkan support, while the Quadro M4000 lists Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro's Maxwell architecture also supports DirectX 12_1, including features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views, which the Fermi-based GTX cannot handle.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior GPU in every recorded metric. Its OpenCL score of 19,118 versus the GTX 580M's 6,389 represents a 66.6% advantage, and its compute, memory, and API support are all generations ahead. Anyone needing modern DirectX 12_1, Vulkan, or high-bandwidth memory for professional workloads should choose the Quadro M4000.

The GTX 580M, despite its lower scores, still holds relevance in its niche. Its 37th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 32nd percentile suggests that in the single benchmark where both are measured, the GTX 580M is not far behind the broader field. However, that single result is deceptive, as the Quadro's average is dragged down by legacy DirectX tests that score 113 in DirectX 9, 49 in DirectX 11, and 33 in DirectX 10. These low scores reflect older API paths, not the card's true capability.

For a portable device from 2011, the GTX 580M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 and 952.3 GFLOPS, which was respectable for its era. But the Quadro M4000, with 8 GB of memory, 2.573 TFLOPS, and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, is in a different class. The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, making it viable for modern cross-platform applications, while the GTX 580M is limited to OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 11_0.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Quadro M4000 for any workload involving compute, modern graphics APIs, or high-resolution textures. Choose the GTX 580M only if you are constrained to an MXM mobile form factor and cannot use a full-size PCIe card. The data shows no scenario where the GTX 580M outperforms the Quadro M4000 in a shared benchmark.