NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a narrow but definitive edge for the GTX 675M. The GeForce GTX 675M scored 6,946 points, while the Quadro K4000 scored 6,816 points, a delta of 1.9% in favor of the GTX 675M. This is a close contest, but the data indicates that the GTX 675M holds the advantage in this particular compute workload.

Contextualizing the GTX 675M's score against its nearest rivals clarifies its position. The GTX 675M's 6,946 OpenCL score places it 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7,023) and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA T600 (7,035), while it is 1.7% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830). The closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M240, which scores 6,975, putting the GTX 675M a mere 0.4% behind that part. This suggests the GTX 675M sits in a tight performance cluster where small margins separate the contenders.

On the other side, the Quadro K4000's OpenCL score of 6,816 is its own benchmark result, but its aggregate profile is different. The Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,982 across all recorded tests, which includes a Geekbench Metal score of 4,166 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6,964, in addition to the OpenCL result. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986, a 0.1% delta), the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987, a 0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970, a 0.2% delta), with the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (a 0.2% delta). The Quadro K4000's average score is essentially level with these competitors, indicating that its OpenCL performance is somewhat above its overall average, likely due to the lower Metal and Vulkan scores pulling the average down.

The head-to-head record is clear: the GTX 675M wins the only direct comparison, taking 1 win versus 0 for the Quadro K4000. However, the 1.9% margin is minimal, and the Quadro K4000 shows strength in other API tests that are not part of the direct head-to-head but are recorded in its benchmark history. In Vulkan, the Quadro K4000 scores 6,964, which is higher than either card's OpenCL result, and in Metal it scores 4,166, which is substantially lower. The GTX 675M has no recorded Vulkan or Metal scores, so the OpenCL test is the sole point of comparison.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 6,946 versus the Quadro K4000's 6,816, a 1.9% advantage.

Q: How does the GTX 675M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 675M's OpenCL score is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7,023), and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA T600 (7,035), while it is 1.7% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830).

Q: What is the Quadro K4000's average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5,982, which is pulled down by its Metal score of 4,166, while its OpenCL score is 6,816 and its Vulkan score is 6,964.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 have any benchmark results outside OpenCL?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4000 has recorded Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores of 4,166 and 6,964 respectively, whereas the GTX 675M has only the OpenCL score of 6,946 on record.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000's average score compare to its rivals?

A: The Quadro K4000's average of 5,982 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986), the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987), and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970), and it is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996).

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 675M ranks in the 39th percentile, while the Quadro K4000 ranks in the 34th percentile, indicating the GTX 675M sits slightly higher in the overall distribution of recorded GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675M wins the only direct comparison, but the data supports distinct use-case strengths for each card. In raw OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 675M is the clear winner, and its 39th percentile ranking versus the Quadro K4000's 34th percentile suggests it is the stronger general-purpose performer among the two. The GTX 675M also has a higher pixel rate (9.920 GPixel/s) and a higher ROP count (32 versus 24), which could favor tasks that rely on pixel throughput, though the Quadro K4000 counters with a higher texture rate and FP32 throughput.

The Quadro K4000, despite losing the head-to-head, shows its strengths in the Vulkan API, where it scores 6,964, a figure that exceeds the GTX 675M's OpenCL score. This indicates the Quadro K4000 may be better suited for workloads that leverage Vulkan, such as certain modern games or compute applications that use that API. Its Metal score of 4,166 is comparatively low, so macOS Metal workloads would not be a primary use case.

For professional or workstation-oriented tasks, the Quadro K4000's feature set, including its display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2) and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, positions it for desktop workstation use, whereas the GTX 675M is designed for portable devices as an MXM module. The Quadro K4000 also has a lower TDP of 80 W versus the GTX 675M's 100 W, which may be relevant for systems where power consumption is a constraint, despite the GTX 675M's higher raw OpenCL score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their memory and core configurations. The GTX 675M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, while the Quadro K4000 offers 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing a higher bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s. The Quadro K4000's memory clock is 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), compared to the GTX 675M's 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), which explains its bandwidth advantage despite the narrower bus.

In terms of compute units, the Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, double the GTX 675M's 384 shading units, but both have 64 texture mapping units. The GTX 675M has 32 ROPs, while the Quadro K4000 has 24 ROPs, which affects pixel fill rates: the GTX 675M achieves 9.920 GPixel/s versus the Quadro K4000's 12.96 GPixel/s, a counterintuitive result given the ROP count difference, likely due to clock and memory effects. The texture rates also differ, with the GTX 675M at 39.68 GTexel/s and the Quadro K4000 at 51.84 GTexel/s.

The power and physical specifications diverge as well. The GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors, whereas the Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP, a single-slot design, and requires one 6-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro K4000's bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 675M uses MXM-B (3.0), and the Quadro K4000 has a length of 241 mm (9.5 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), whereas the GTX 675M's dimensions are not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational and foundational. The GTX 675M is built on NVIDIA's Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, housing 1,950 million transistors on a die size of 332 mm², giving a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The Quadro K4000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip, also from TSMC, but on a 28 nm process, packing 2,540 million transistors into a smaller 221 mm² die, resulting in a higher density of 11.5 million per mm².

These architectural differences translate into distinct feature capabilities. The Quadro K4000 supports the Vulkan API version 1.2.175, while the GTX 675M has no recorded Vulkan support, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4000's Kepler architecture is more modern and efficient, as reflected in its lower TDP (80 W versus 100 W) despite having more shading units and a larger memory pool.

The GTX 675M belongs to the GeForce 600M generation, with a predecessor in the GeForce 500M and a successor in the GeForce 700M, while the Quadro K4000 is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The release dates differ by about a year: the GTX 675M launched on March 21, 2012, and the Quadro K4000 on February 28, 2013. Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 675M's Fermi architecture is older in design lineage, while the Quadro K4000's Kepler architecture brings improved compute efficiency and API support.

The Verdict

The data indicates that for pure OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M is the superior choice, winning the head-to-head by 1.9% and ranking in the 39th percentile versus the Quadro K4000's 34th. Users who prioritize a single compute workload and operate within a portable, MXM-based system should lean toward the GTX 675M, especially given its higher ROP count and pixel rate, which can benefit certain rendering paths.

However, the Quadro K4000 is not without its merits. Its higher memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), larger 3 GB frame buffer, and superior Vulkan performance (6,964) make it a compelling option for desktop workstation environments where memory capacity and API flexibility are critical. Its 80 W TDP and single-slot form factor also suit compact or power-conscious builds, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is standard for desktop motherboards, unlike the GTX 675M's laptop-oriented MXM module.

From a pure specification standpoint, the Quadro K4000 offers more shading units (768 versus 384), higher FP32 throughput (1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 952.3 GFLOPS), and a newer Kepler architecture with better transistor density and Vulkan support. Yet in the only recorded benchmark, the GTX 675M edges it out, suggesting that architectural efficiency does not always translate to direct compute wins in every API.

The verdict is situational. For a mobile or embedded application that relies on OpenCL, the GTX 675M is the data-backed winner. For a desktop workstation that values memory bandwidth, multi-API support, and lower power draw, the Quadro K4000 is the more versatile option, despite its loss in the single head-to-head test. The 1.9% margin is small enough that real-world performance will hinge on the specific software and driver environment, but the recorded data gives the GTX 675M the sole victory in direct comparison.