NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by nearly four years of architecture evolution. The data shows a clear generational gap, with the Quadro P4000 dominating in the head-to-head tests, yet the GTX 760 holds its own as a historical baseline. The benchmark results indicate that the P4000 is not merely an incremental upgrade but a substantial leap in raw compute capability, though the GTX 760’s legacy in the GeForce lineup remains notable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but decisive, with the Quadro P4000 winning both available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36,212 against the GTX 760’s 11,299, a delta of 220.5% in favor of the newer card. This is not a marginal victory; the P4000 delivers more than three times the compute throughput in this API, reflecting its far larger shading unit count and higher clock speeds. The gap in Geekbench Vulkan is even wider, with the P4000 posting 41,786 versus the GTX 760’s 12,551, a 232.9% advantage. Vulkan’s low-level nature often exposes raw hardware differences, and here the P4000’s Pascal architecture clearly benefits from its 1792 shading units and 1480 MHz boost clock, compared to the GTX 760’s 1152 units and 1032 MHz boost.

The absence of other shared benchmarks in the FACT PACK limits the scope, but the two available tests are sufficient to establish a pattern. The P4000’s wins are not close calls; they are decisive routs. For context, the P4000’s average benchmark score of 9,665 places it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 760’s average of 9,458 sits at the 46th percentile. Despite the massive per-test deltas, their overall averages are surprisingly close—a 2.2% difference—which suggests that the GTX 760 performs relatively better in legacy or less compute-intensive workloads than in modern API tests. The P4000’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (delta 0.1%) and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (delta 0.3%), while the GTX 760’s closest competitors are the GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK (delta -0.2%) and the Radeon R7 M380 (delta 1.6%). These rivalries highlight that the GTX 760, despite its age, still competes with much newer entry-level cards, whereas the P4000 sits in a professional tier with its own performance envelope.

The pixel and texture rates reinforce the compute gap. The P4000 achieves 94.72 GPixel/s and 165.8 GTexel/s, dwarfing the GTX 760’s 24.77 GPixel/s and 99.07 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth also favors the P4000 at 243.3 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s, a 26.5% advantage that becomes critical in texture-heavy or high-resolution workloads. In every measurable head-to-head metric, the P4000 wins, and the deltas are large enough to classify this as a generational leap rather than a simple refresh.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 220.5% higher than the GTX 760’s 11,299. This indicates the P4000 has more than triple the compute throughput in this workload.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The P4000 leads with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 41,786 versus the GTX 760’s 12,551, a 232.9% delta. The P4000’s modern architecture and higher shader count contribute to this significant advantage.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth difference?

A: The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 760 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 192.3 GB/s. The P4000 offers four times the capacity and 26.5% more bandwidth.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the GTX 760 wins?

A: In the provided head-to-head data, the GTX 760 wins zero tests. The P4000 wins both available benchmarks, and no other shared tests are listed.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9,665, while the GTX 760 averages 9,458, a difference of about 2.2%. Despite large deltas in individual tests, their overall averages are close, suggesting the GTX 760 performs better in non-compute workloads.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The P4000 uses 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, while the GTX 760 uses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The P4000 has more than double the transistor count but a similar die size, reflecting a much higher transistor density of 22.9M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm².

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The P4000 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP104 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 760 uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process shrink from 28 nm to 16 nm is a primary driver of the performance gap, allowing the P4000 to pack 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M / mm². The GTX 760, by contrast, crams 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0M / mm². The P4000’s density is nearly double, which directly enables its higher core counts and clock speeds.

The shading unit count differs substantially: the P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 ROPs, while the GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This 55% increase in shading units and 100% increase in ROPs explains the P4000’s superior pixel and texture throughput. The P4000’s pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s is nearly four times the GTX 760’s 24.77 GPixel/s, a direct consequence of the higher ROP count and clock speeds. Texture rate follows suit: 165.8 GTexel/s versus 99.07 GTexel/s, a 67% advantage.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both use GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the P4000 runs at 7.6 Gbps effective versus the GTX 760’s 6 Gbps, yielding bandwidths of 243.3 GB/s and 192.3 GB/s, respectively. The P4000’s 8 GB capacity quadruples the GTX 760’s 2 GB, which is critical for modern professional workloads like large 3D scenes or high-resolution textures. The P4000 also supports FP16 compute at 82.88 GFLOPS (with a 1:64 ratio), while the GTX 760 has no listed FP16 capability, highlighting a feature set oriented toward newer compute standards.

The API support reflects their respective eras. Both support DirectX 12, but the P4000 implements version 12_1, while the GTX 760 is limited to 11_0. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the P4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 760 is capped at 1.2.175. These differences matter for modern applications that leverage newer features, even if the GTX 760 remains functional in older titles.

Specification Differences

The specifications that differ between the two cards are numerous and significant. The process node is 16 nm for the P4000 versus 28 nm for the GTX 760, a major efficiency and density differentiator. Transistor count is 7,200 million versus 3,540 million, and die size is 314 mm² versus 294 mm², leading to transistor densities of 22.9M / mm² and 12.0M / mm², respectively. Base clock speeds are 1202 MHz for the P4000 and 980 MHz for the GTX 760, with boost clocks of 1480 MHz and 1032 MHz. Memory speed is 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Memory size is 8 GB versus 2 GB, though both use GDDR5 and a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is 243.3 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. The P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the GTX 760 has 1,152, 96, and 32, respectively. Pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s versus 24.77 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 99.07 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.304 TFLOPS versus 2.378 TFLOPS, a 123% advantage for the P4000. The P4000 has FP16 performance of 82.88 GFLOPS, while the GTX 760 has none listed.

Power and physical specs also diverge. The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W, is single-slot, and uses a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GTX 760 has a TDP of 170 W, is dual-slot, requires two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. Display outputs differ: the P4000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the GTX 760 has two DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and are end-of-life products, but the P4000 was released in February 2017 with a launch MSRP of 815 USD, while the GTX 760 launched in June 2013 at 249 USD.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro P4000 is the superior performer in every head-to-head metric and most raw specification categories. Its 220.5% OpenCL and 232.9% Vulkan leads are not subtle. The P4000’s FP32 throughput of 5.304 TFLOPS is more than double the GTX 760’s 2.378 TFLOPS, and its 8 GB memory capacity is four times larger. For any workload that stresses compute, memory bandwidth, or modern API features, the P4000 is the clear choice.

However, the GTX 760 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 9,458 is only 2.2% behind the P4000’s 9,665, which suggests that in certain legacy or rasterization-heavy tasks, the older card remains competitive. The GTX 760’s lower launch MSRP of 249 USD (compared to 815 USD) makes it a historically more accessible option, though pricing is not a current selection criterion. The GTX 760’s 46th percentile ranking versus the P4000’s 47th percentile indicates they occupy similar overall performance tiers in the broader GPU landscape, despite the P4000’s dominance in modern compute tests.

The verdict hinges on workload. For professionals requiring 8 GB of VRAM, high FP32 throughput, and modern API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1), the P4000 is the only viable option. For hobbyists or those working with older software that does not leverage Vulkan or large memory pools, the GTX 760 could still suffice, but the P4000’s advantages in pixel rate (94.72 versus 24.77 GPixel/s) and texture rate (165.8 versus 99.07 GTexel/s) make it better suited for any graphics-intensive task. The data suggests the P4000 is the pick for any current or forward-looking use case.

Where Each One Wins

The P4000 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 36,212 and Vulkan score of 41,786 place it far ahead of the GTX 760, making it the choice for machine learning inference, scientific simulation, or any CUDA-accelerated workload that can utilize its 1,792 shading units and 5.304 TFLOPS. The 8 GB memory capacity is another clear win, enabling larger datasets and textures that would exhaust the GTX 760’s 2 GB frame buffer. The P4000’s higher memory bandwidth (243.3 GB/s) also benefits bandwidth-bound tasks like video editing or 3D rendering.

The GTX 760 wins in legacy compatibility and power efficiency relative to its era. Its 28 nm Kepler architecture supports older DirectX 11_0 APIs, which may be necessary for certain legacy applications that do not support newer versions. The GTX 760’s lower transistor count (3,540 million) and smaller die (294 mm²) mean it is a physically simpler chip, though its 170 W TDP is higher than the P4000’s 105 W. In terms of display outputs, the GTX 760’s dual DVI ports are useful for older monitors, while the P4000’s four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are better suited to modern multi-display professional setups.

The GTX 760 also holds a niche in its average benchmark score being within 2.2% of the P4000, despite losing the head-to-head tests by large margins. This suggests that in non-compute benchmarks like PassMark G2D or G3D (where only the P4000 has scores: 786 and 11,466 respectively), the GTX 760 might perform closer, though no direct comparison is available. The GTX 760’s nearest rivals are the GTX TITAN BLACK and Radeon R7 M380, indicating it still competes with mid-range hardware from later generations. For users with a strict need for dual DVI outputs or legacy API support, the GTX 760 remains a functional, if dated, option.