NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M are two mobile graphics solutions from different eras of NVIDIA's lineup, with the GTX 760M representing a consumer-oriented Kepler part and the Quadro 4000M a professional Fermi-based offering. The data reveals a close overall contest, with the GTX 760M holding a slim edge in average benchmark score, but the two cards are separated by significant architectural and specification gaps that tell a more nuanced story than the raw numbers alone suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,604 points against the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's 5,211 points. This gives the GTX 760M a clear 7.5% advantage in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is substantial enough to indicate a real performance lead, not just a statistical tie. When looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the GTX 760M posts 5,236 overall, while the Quadro 4000M averages 5,211, a difference of only 0.5% from the perspective of the GTX 760M's rival list. This tells us that while the GTX 760M wins the single head-to-head test, the overall average scores place them virtually neck-and-neck.

The nearest rival data for the GTX 760M puts its average score 1.3% behind the GeForce GTX 980M and 0.9% behind the GeForce 940M, while sitting 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. For the Quadro 4000M, its average is 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M and 1.1% ahead of the Quadro K3100M, with the Radeon R7 M260X trailing by 1%. The GTX 760M's OpenCL score of 5,604 is its peak in the dataset, while the Quadro 4000M only has the single OpenCL result of 5,211, which also serves as its average. This suggests that the GTX 760M may have more headroom in certain compute tasks, but the lack of additional benchmarks for the Quadro 4000M makes it difficult to assess its consistency across different workloads.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the faster card in OpenCL compute, winning the only direct head-to-head test by 7.5%. Its average benchmark score of 5,236 also edges out the Quadro 4000M's 5,211, even if the margin is razor-thin at around half a percent. The GTX 760M also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs at 31, compared to the Quadro 4000M's 30th percentile. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in the OpenCL API, the GTX 760M is the clear choice based on the available evidence.

However, the Quadro 4000M is not without its own arguments. Its 256-bit memory bus offers 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 24.7% higher than the GTX 760M's 64.13 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive rather than compute-bound, this could make the Quadro 4000M competitive or even superior, despite its lower raw floating-point throughput. The Quadro 4000M also comes from the professional Quadro line, which historically targets different use cases like CAD and content creation, though the benchmark data does not include specific professional application tests to verify this advantage. The data shows a tie in the overall average scores, so the verdict depends on whether the user values the GTX 760M's compute lead or the Quadro 4000M's memory bandwidth advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has an average benchmark score of 5,236, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M averages 5,211, giving the GTX 760M a 0.5% lead according to the GTX 760M's nearest rival data.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 760M scores 5,604 in the OpenCL test, beating the Quadro 4000M's 5,211 by 7.5%. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark in the dataset.

Q: How do these cards compare to other GPUs in their respective rival lists?

A: The GTX 760M sits 1.3% below the GeForce GTX 980M and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. The Quadro 4000M is 1.4% below the GeForce 940M and 1.1% above the Quadro K3100M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 760M ranks in the 31st percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M ranks in the 30th percentile, a difference of one percentile point.

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

A: Yes, the Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth compared to the GTX 760M's 64.13 GB/s, a 24.7% advantage in raw bandwidth, though this is not reflected in the single benchmark result.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Quadro 4000M wins?

A: In the data provided, the Quadro 4000M wins zero benchmarks, while the GTX 760M wins one. The Quadro 4000M's only benchmark result is the OpenCL test it loses.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The GTX 760M uses a 28 nm process node, while the Quadro 4000M is built on a larger 40 nm process. The GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5M per mm², whereas the Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, giving a density of just 5.9M per mm². Clock speeds differ significantly: the GTX 760M has a base clock of 628 MHz and a boost clock of 719 MHz, while the Quadro 4000M has no listed base or boost clocks at all. Memory clocks also differ, with the GTX 760M running at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro 4000M's 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems are notably different. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 760M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000M uses a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 760M, which has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, compared to the Quadro 4000M's 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 11.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s for the GTX 760M, versus 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000M. Floating-point performance shows the GTX 760M at 1,104.4 GFLOPS, nearly double the Quadro 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS.

Power consumption is another major divergence, with the GTX 760M rated at 55 W TDP compared to the Quadro 4000M's 100 W TDP. The bus interfaces also differ: the GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). In terms of API support, the GTX 760M lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed. Release dates are far apart, with the GTX 760M launching on May 29, 2013, and the Quadro 4000M on February 21, 2011.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 760M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, while the Quadro 4000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip. This generational gap explains many of the performance and efficiency differences. Kepler is a more modern architecture that delivers higher performance per watt and per transistor, which is evident in the GTX 760M's lower 55 W TDP while still producing 1,104.4 GFLOPS of compute power. The Fermi architecture in the Quadro 4000M is less efficient, requiring 100 W to produce only 638.4 GFLOPS.

The transistor density difference is striking: the GTX 760M achieves 11.5M transistors per mm² on its 28 nm process, while the Quadro 4000M manages only 5.9M on its 40 nm process. This is a direct consequence of the manufacturing node advancement. The GTX 760M has more than double the shading units (768 vs 336) and more TMUs (64 vs 56), but the Quadro 4000M has double the ROPs (32 vs 16), which aligns with its higher memory bandwidth and suggests a design optimized for different workloads. The GTX 760M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a feature absent from the Quadro 4000M's specifications, indicating a more modern software stack. Both cards share the same DirectX support at 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro 4000M lacks Vulkan entirely, which could limit its compatibility with newer applications.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 5,604 is 7.5% higher than the Quadro 4000M's 5,211, and its FP32 throughput of 1,104.4 GFLOPS is nearly 73% higher than the Quadro 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 760M also has a higher texture rate (46.02 GTexel/s vs 26.60 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (11.50 GPixel/s vs 6.650 GPixel/s), making it better suited for gaming and general-purpose graphics workloads. Its lower TDP of 55 W versus 100 W also gives it a significant efficiency advantage, which is critical for mobile devices where thermal and power budgets are constrained.

The Quadro 4000M wins in memory bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is 24.7% higher than the GTX 760M's 64.13 GB/s, and its 256-bit bus is double the width. This could benefit applications that stream large datasets, such as certain professional visualization or compute tasks that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited. The Quadro 4000M also has double the ROPs (32 vs 16), which may help in fill-rate-limited scenarios at lower resolutions. However, the data does not include any benchmarks where the Quadro 4000M actually wins, so this advantage is speculative based on specifications rather than demonstrated in test results. For users who rely on OpenCL compute, the GTX 760M is the proven winner, while the Quadro 4000M's bandwidth advantage remains an untested potential benefit.