NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 are both Kepler-era professional and mobile graphics solutions, but the recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the GTX 680M wins decisively, posting a 15.6% advantage in Geekbench Metal and a 35.4% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 680M also holds a higher average benchmark score of 7023 against the Quadro K4000's 5982, placing it at the 39th percentile of all GPUs compared to the Quadro's 34th. The Quadro K4000 does bring workstation-oriented features, a lower power draw, and a professional form factor, but in raw compute performance, the GTX 680M is the stronger part in nearly every measurable way.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. Its Geekbench Metal score of 4815 beats the Quadro K4000's 4166 by 15.6%, and its Geekbench OpenCL score of 9230 beats the Quadro's 6816 by 35.4%. The OpenCL gap is particularly large, indicating that the GTX 680M's compute throughput is substantially higher for general-purpose workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration. The Metal result, while still a clear win, shows a narrower margin, suggesting the Quadro K4000 is comparatively less disadvantaged in Apple's Metal API than in OpenCL.

The Quadro K4000 does not win any of the two shared benchmarks, but it has its own strengths in the database. It is the only card of the two with a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score, reaching 6964, which indicates it supports Vulkan workloads in a way that the GTX 680M has no recorded result for. The Quadro also carries a workstation pedigree with an 80 W TDP against the GTX 680M's 100 W, making it a more power-efficient option for systems where thermal headroom is limited. For users who need a single-slot, PCIe 2.0 x16 card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, the Quadro K4000 is the only one of the two that fits that physical profile.

The GTX 680M is a mobile MXM module, so it is intended for laptops or compact systems that accept MXM-B (3.0) cards. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the host laptop determines connectivity. The Quadro K4000, by contrast, is a desktop workstation card with a 241 mm length, 111 mm height, and a single-slot design, making it suitable for standard desktop chassis where the GTX 680M cannot be installed at all.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm, and both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. That is where the architectural commonality ends. The GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Quadro K4000 uses the smaller GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 11.5M per mm².

The GTX 680M has 1344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. That means the GTX 680M has 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, and 33% more ROPs than the Quadro. These raw execution resource differences explain the GTX 680M's large lead in fill-rate and compute benchmarks. The GTX 680M also has a higher pixel rate of 21.22 GPixel/s versus 12.96 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and a higher texture rate of 84.90 GTexel/s versus 51.84 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations differ as well. The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s. The Quadro actually has higher memory bandwidth despite the narrower bus because its memory clock is listed at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), compared to the GTX 680M's 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The GTX 680M has more capacity and a wider bus, but the Quadro moves data faster per pin. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited, the Quadro's advantage in raw bandwidth could matter, though its lower shader count will still hold it back in most cases.

The GTX 680M's base clock is 719 MHz with a boost of 758 MHz. The Quadro K4000 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only its memory clock. The GTX 680M's FP32 throughput is 2.038 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K4000 is rated at 1,244.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.244 TFLOPS). The GTX 680M delivers about 64% more single-precision floating-point performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the largest single benchmark gap between the two cards. The GTX 680M scores 9230 while the Quadro K4000 scores 6816, a 35.4% difference. This is consistent with the GTX 680M's much larger execution resource pool: more than double the shading units and TMUs, plus a higher FP32 rating. In OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count, the GTX 680M should deliver near-linear scaling advantages, and the recorded data confirms that.

The Geekbench Metal result shows a smaller but still decisive gap. The GTX 680M scores 4815 against the Quadro K4000's 4166, a 15.6% advantage. Metal is a lower-level API that can be more sensitive to memory bandwidth and driver optimization than raw shader count. The Quadro K4000's higher memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s) likely narrows the gap in this test, but it is not enough to overcome the GTX 680M's superior compute resources.

The Quadro K4000 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 6964, which the GTX 680M cannot match because the database has no Vulkan result for the GTX 680M. This is not a head-to-head comparison, but it indicates that the Quadro K4000 supports Vulkan in a measurable way, while the GTX 680M's Vulkan support is unverified in the recorded data. The Quadro's Vulkan score is higher than its Metal score (6964 versus 4166), suggesting that Vulkan is a more favorable API for this card.

Looking at the GTX 680M's nearest rivals, its average score of 7023 places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA T600 (7035), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7157) by 1.9%. The Quadro K4000, with an average score of 5982, sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986) and the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987), and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970). It trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996) by 0.2%. These deltas are all small, indicating that both cards are tightly clustered with their immediate competitors, but the two cards themselves are separated by a much larger gap of about 17.4% in average score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M has an average benchmark score of 7023, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an average of 5982. The GTX 680M sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 680M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 680M scores 9230 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 35.4% higher than the Quadro K4000's score of 6816.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 win any benchmark?

A: In the two shared benchmarks (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL), the Quadro K4000 wins neither. It does have a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 6964, but the GTX 680M has no recorded Vulkan result to compare.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus. However, the Quadro has higher memory bandwidth at 134.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W and requires no power connectors because it is an MXM module. The Quadro K4000 has a TDP of 80 W, requires one 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Can these cards be used in the same system?

A: No. The GTX 680M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is a mobile module, while the Quadro K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and is a single-slot desktop card. They are physically incompatible.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK104 | GK106 |

| Generation | GeForce 600M | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 719 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 758 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 3.6 Gbps effective | 1404 MHz, 5.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 134.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1344 | 768 |

| TMUs | 112 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.22 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 84.90 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.038 TFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 80 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 241 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release Date | 2012-06-03 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | GeForce 700M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 1,269 USD |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is the faster GPU in every shared benchmark. Its 35.4% OpenCL lead and 15.6% Metal lead are substantial enough that any compute-oriented user should prefer it over the Quadro K4000, assuming the MXM form factor is acceptable. The GTX 680M also has more memory (4 GB versus 3 GB), more shading units (1344 versus 768), and a higher FP32 rating (2.038 TFLOPS versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS). Its average score of 7023 places it in a higher performance tier than the Quadro K4000's 5982.

The Quadro K4000 is the better choice only in specific scenarios. It draws less power (80 W versus 100 W), has higher memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s), and comes in a desktop-friendly single-slot form factor with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. It also has a recorded Vulkan score of 6964, which the GTX 680M lacks. If the workload requires a low-power, single-slot desktop card with DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro K4000 is the only viable option between the two. Its launch MSRP was 1,269 USD, but its benchmark performance trails the GTX 680M by roughly 17% on average.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance and have a system that accepts an MXM-B module, the GTX 680M is the clear winner. For users who need a desktop workstation card with professional display outputs and lower power draw, the Quadro K4000 is the appropriate pick despite its lower scores. The database shows no scenario where the Quadro K4000 outperforms the GTX 680M in a shared test, so the decision rests entirely on form factor, power, and interface requirements rather than performance.