NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable compute benchmark between these two mobile graphics processors: Geekbench OpenCL. The results show a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M, which scored 9,230 points against the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M’s 5,986 points. That represents a delta of 54.2 percent, meaning the GTX 680M delivers more than half again the raw compute throughput of the Quadro in this workload. Put simply, in an OpenCL compute task, the GeForce finishes the job while the Quadro is still working through the same data set.

The magnitude of that gap is worth pausing on. A 54.2 percent lead is not a narrow margin, it is a generational-style chasm within the same architecture family. The GTX 680M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests sits at 7,023, while the K4000M’s average is 5,986. That overall average, however, includes a second Geekbench Metal result for the GTX 680M (4,815 points), which drags its combined figure down. The OpenCL result alone tells the cleaner story: the GTX 680M is substantially faster in general-purpose GPU compute.

Looking at where each card sits among its peers, the GTX 680M holds a 39th percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T600 (7,035 average, just 0.2 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975 average, 0.7 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6,946 average, 1.1 percent behind). The K4000M, by contrast, sits at the 34th percentile, with its closest competitor being the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (exactly 0 percent delta), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982 (0.1 percent behind). Notably, the K4000M’s nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.2 percent ahead) and the GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (0.2 percent ahead), both of which cluster tightly around the Quadro’s score.

The data suggests that the GTX 680M occupies a performance tier roughly one full class above the K4000M. The Quadro’s closest competitors all hover within a few points of 6,000, while the GeForce’s rivals cluster near 7,000. That 1,000-point gap in typical competitor scores mirrors the 3,244-point gap in the direct head-to-head OpenCL measurement.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M wins the only directly comparable benchmark in the database, and it wins by a wide margin. For tasks that rely on OpenCL compute, whether that means video encoding assists, physics simulations, or other GPGPU workloads, the GTX 680M is clearly the stronger choice. Its shading unit count of 1,344 versus the K4000M’s 960, combined with higher clock speeds (719 MHz base and 758 MHz boost versus 601 MHz fixed), explains much of this advantage. More shaders running at higher frequencies will produce more floating-point operations per second, and the numbers bear that out: 2.038 TFLOPS FP32 for the GTX 680M versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS for the K4000M.

The K4000M’s domain is not raw speed but specialization. As a Quadro-branded part, it belongs to NVIDIA’s professional visualization line, which typically targets CAD, engineering, and content creation applications with certified drivers. The database does not record any benchmark where the K4000M wins, so from a purely measured performance standpoint, the GTX 680M wins every recorded comparison. However, the K4000M’s existence in the Quadro Kepler-M generation suggests its purpose is professional software certification rather than peak compute throughput. The GTX 680M’s GeForce 600M lineage points toward gaming and consumer media workloads.

Where the K4000M could still be relevant is in legacy professional workflows that require Quadro driver certification. The GTX 680M, despite being faster, may not be the correct tool for a specific engineering application that demands certified OpenGL behavior. The database does not include such certification data, so this remains an inference from the naming and generation information, not a measured result.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon: the GK104 chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, containing 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. They belong to the same Kepler architecture generation. The differences lie entirely in how NVIDIA configured that chip for each product.

The GTX 680M enables 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K4000M uses a more restricted configuration with 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. This means the GTX 680M has 40 percent more shaders and 40 percent more texture units, while both cards maintain identical ROP counts. The pixel rate tells that story: 21.22 GPixel/s for the GeForce versus 12.02 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate follows the same pattern at 84.90 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The GTX 680M runs at 719 MHz base with a 758 MHz boost, while the K4000M is locked at 601 MHz with no boost headroom. Memory clocks also differ substantially: the GTX 680M runs its GDDR5 at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), producing 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256-bit bus. The K4000M runs memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), yielding 89.60 GB/s over the same 256-bit interface. Both cards carry 4 GB of GDDR5.

The GTX 680M’s FP32 throughput of 2.038 TFLOPS comes from the combination of more shaders and higher clocks. The K4000M’s 1,153.9 GFLOPS is roughly 43 percent lower. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as these predate those hardware units in NVIDIA’s lineup.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several specification fields. Shading units: 1,344 versus 960. TMUs: 112 versus 80. ROPs are identical at 32. Base clock: 719 MHz versus 601 MHz. Boost clock: 758 MHz versus 601 MHz (the Quadro has no boost). Memory clock: 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s. Pixel rate: 21.22 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 84.90 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s. FP32: 2.038 TFLOPS versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS.

Both share the 28 nm process, GK104 chip, 3,540 million transistors, 294 mm² die size, 4 GB GDDR5 memory, 256-bit bus width, 100 W TDP, MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, portable-device-dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 680M released on 2012-06-03, the K4000M on 2012-05-31, a difference of three days. The GeForce’s predecessor was GeForce 500M and its successor GeForce 700M. The Quadro’s predecessor was Quadro Fermi-M and its successor Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M, scoring 9,230 versus the Quadro K4000M’s 5,986, a 54.2 percent advantage.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with identical transistor counts and die size.

Q: How much memory do they have?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, though the GTX 680M achieves higher bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The GTX 680M delivers 2.038 TFLOPS, while the K4000M delivers 1,153.9 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 77 percent in favor of the GeForce.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 680M has 1,344 shading units, compared to 960 on the K4000M.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the GTX 680M is the faster GPU by every measured metric in the database. Its OpenCL score is 54.2 percent higher, its FP32 throughput is nearly double, its shading unit count is 40 percent greater, and its memory bandwidth is 28.6 percent higher. For anyone choosing between these two for raw compute workloads, the GTX 680M is the unambiguous pick.

The K4000M’s case rests entirely on its Quadro branding and the associated professional driver ecosystem. The database records no benchmark where the K4000M outperforms the GTX 680M. Its percentile ranking (34th versus 39th) and average score (5,986 versus 7,023) both trail. The Quadro line’s purpose has historically been software certification for professional applications, and the K4000M sits in the Quadro Kepler-M generation, which implies that role. But measured performance does not support selecting the K4000M on speed alone.

Buyers seeking maximum compute throughput from a mobile Kepler GPU should choose the GTX 680M. Buyers who require Quadro-specific driver certification for legacy professional software, and who are willing to accept a 54.2 percent performance deficit in OpenCL, would have reason to consider the K4000M. The database cannot confirm or deny driver certification benefits, so that decision falls outside measured data. Within the bounds of recorded benchmarks, the GTX 680M wins every comparison that exists.