NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 represent two very different design philosophies from the same company, separated by roughly three years of GPU architecture evolution. While the GTX 760M is a mobile-first Kepler part aimed at consumer laptops, the Quadro 4000 is a professional desktop workstation card built on the older Fermi architecture. Benchmark data shows the GTX 760M holds a clear performance lead in the single available OpenCL test, but the decision between these two end-of-life products depends heavily on whether the user prioritizes raw compute throughput or professional-grade display features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisively in favor of the GTX 760M. The mobile Kepler GPU scored 5,604 points, while the desktop Quadro 4000 managed 4,979 points. This translates to a 12.6% performance advantage for the GTX 760M, a significant margin given that both cards were designed for different market segments.

The GTX 760M's advantage in OpenCL compute is not surprising when examining the underlying specifications. The mobile part ships with 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, compared to the Quadro 4000's 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 760M also achieves 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, more than double the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS. The pixel rate tells a similar story: the GTX 760M renders at 11.50 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and the texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s vastly outstrips the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s.

Interestingly, the Quadro 4000 does hold one architectural advantage in the memory subsystem. Its 256-bit memory bus provides 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the GTX 760M's 128-bit bus and 64.13 GB/s. However, this bandwidth advantage does not translate into a benchmark victory, suggesting that the GTX 760M's superior shader throughput and texture processing capabilities dominate in the OpenCL workload.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the GTX 760M's average benchmark score of 5,236 places it just 0.5% ahead of the Quadro 4000M, which scores 5,211, and 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5,161. The Quadro 4000's average score of 4,979 puts it in close competition with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which scores 4,970 for a 0.2% delta, and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4,931, where the Quadro leads by 1%. The GTX 760M also outperforms the Quadro 4000 by a wider margin than its nearest rivals suggest, with the GeForce 940M trailing by 0.9% and the GTX 980M by 1.3% relative to the GTX 760M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has an average benchmark score of 5,236, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's average of 4,979. The GTX 760M also ranks at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000 have any performance advantage over the GTX 760M?

A: Yes, the Quadro 4000 offers higher memory bandwidth at 89.86 GB/s compared to the GTX 760M's 64.13 GB/s, thanks to its wider 256-bit memory bus versus the 128-bit bus on the mobile chip. The Quadro also has more ROPs, with 32 compared to 16 on the GTX 760M.

Q: What are the release dates for these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 was released on November 1, 2010, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M came later on May 29, 2013. Both products are now classified as end-of-life.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU with a single 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 760M has a much lower TDP of 55 W and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175. The Quadro 4000 does not list Vulkan support in its API specifications, though both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro 4000?

A: The Quadro 4000 had a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD. The GTX 760M does not have a listed launch MSRP in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 760M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, while the Quadro 4000 uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip. This generational gap explains many of the performance differences observed in benchmarks.

The manufacturing process highlights the architectural evolution: the GTX 760M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Quadro 4000 uses a larger 40 nm process. Despite the smaller die, the GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The Quadro 4000 has more transistors overall at 3,100 million, but its die is much larger at 529 mm², resulting in a lower density of 5.9M per mm². This density difference reflects the newer manufacturing technology available to the Kepler part.

The shader architecture differs significantly between the two. The GTX 760M features 768 shading units, which is triple the 256 shading units found on the Quadro 4000. This massive increase in shader count directly contributes to the GTX 760M's FP32 compute advantage of 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. The texture unit configuration also favors the GTX 760M, which has 64 TMUs compared to the Quadro's 32 TMUs, enabling the higher texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture provides a contrasting picture. The Quadro 4000 uses a 256-bit memory bus, double the width of the GTX 760M's 128-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth versus 64.13 GB/s. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the Quadro's memory clock runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) while the GTX 760M's memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 760M's higher memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus.

The bus interface also differs, with the GTX 760M using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Quadro 4000 using the older PCIe 2.0 x16 standard. This means the GTX 760M has access to greater bandwidth for host communication. The GTX 760M is a mobile-oriented MXM Module with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the Quadro 4000 is a single-slot desktop card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Starting with the core configuration, the GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 760M offers more than double the FP32 performance at 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 11.50 GPixel/s is higher than the Quadro's 7.600 GPixel/s.

Memory bandwidth favors the Quadro 4000 at 89.86 GB/s compared to the GTX 760M's 64.13 GB/s, despite both having 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The bus width is the key differentiator: 256-bit on the Quadro versus 128-bit on the GTX 760M. The GTX 760M compensates with a faster memory clock of 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) on the Quadro.

Power and physical specifications show the starkest differences. The GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors, making it suitable for laptops. The Quadro 4000 draws 142 W, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and occupies a single slot with dimensions of 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Connectivity and API support also differ. The GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and lacks Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 760M has no display outputs specified due to its portable-device-dependent nature, whereas the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Quadro 4000 launched with an MSRP of 1,199 USD, while no MSRP is listed for the GTX 760M.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M for general compute performance. Its 12.6% lead in OpenCL benchmarks, combined with a higher average score of 5,236 versus 4,979 and a better percentile ranking (31st versus 29th), makes it the stronger choice for tasks that rely on GPU compute throughput. The Kepler architecture's modern design, with triple the shading units and double the FP32 compute, delivers measurable performance benefits that the Quadro 4000 cannot match despite its wider memory bus.

However, the Quadro 4000 is not without merit. Its 32 ROPs and 256-bit memory bus provide 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, which could benefit certain memory-intensive professional workloads. The card's desktop form factor with dedicated DVI and DisplayPort outputs makes it more suitable for fixed workstation setups, and its 241 mm length fits standard desktop cases. The professional Quadro branding also implies certified driver support for professional applications, though the benchmark data does not quantify this advantage.

For users who need maximum compute performance from these two older options, the GTX 760M is the clear winner. Its lower 55 W TDP also makes it more power-efficient and easier to integrate into various systems. The Quadro 4000's higher 142 W power draw and 300 W PSU requirement make it more demanding to deploy.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M wins in compute-intensive scenarios. Its 1,104.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 46.02 GTexel/s texture rate make it better suited for general-purpose GPU computing, OpenCL workloads, and tasks that leverage high shader counts. The 12.6% OpenCL benchmark victory confirms this advantage in practice. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also provides faster host communication, and its Vulkan support enables modern graphics APIs that the Quadro 4000 cannot access.

The Quadro 4000 wins in memory-heavy scenarios that benefit from high bandwidth. Its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth and 256-bit bus are significantly wider than the GTX 760M's 64.13 GB/s and 128-bit bus, which could matter for large data transfers or specific rendering workloads. The Quadro also has double the ROPs (32 versus 16), potentially improving fill-rate-limited operations, though its lower pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s versus 11.50 GPixel/s suggests this advantage is not realized in practice. Its desktop form factor with fixed display outputs makes it the more straightforward choice for a traditional workstation build, and its 1,199 USD launch MSRP positioned it as a professional product with corresponding support expectations.