NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M leads with an average benchmark score of 5236, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 trails at 4684. This places the GTX 760M in the 31st percentile of all GPUs versus the Quadro P400's 27th percentile.

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

A: The GTX 760M is substantially ahead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5604 against the Quadro P400's 4249, a 31.9% advantage. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any recorded test.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro P400 takes the Vulkan test with a score of 5119, beating the GTX 760M's 4868 by 4.9%. This is the only benchmark in the head-to-head comparison where the Quadro P400 comes out ahead.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between these cards?

A: Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 760M uses a 128-bit bus delivering 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro P400 uses a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro P400 achieves a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, notably higher than the GTX 760M's 11.50 GPixel/s, despite the GTX 760M having higher overall compute throughput.

Q: What are the transistor density figures for each chip?

A: The Quadro P400's GP107 chip on a 14 nm Samsung process packs 25.0M transistors per mm², while the GTX 760M's GK106S on 28 nm TSMC achieves 11.5M per mm². The Quadro P400 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die versus 2,540 million on 221 mm² for the GTX 760M.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M dominates in raw compute-oriented workloads, specifically OpenCL, where its 31.9% lead over the Quadro P400 represents a decisive margin. This advantage stems from the GTX 760M's much larger shader array: 768 shading units against the Quadro P400's 256. The GTX 760M also delivers more than double the texture rate, 46.02 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s, and nearly double the FP32 throughput at 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS. For any application that scales with shading units or texture throughput, the GTX 760M is clearly the stronger option.

The Quadro P400 wins in Vulkan performance, a result that runs counter to its smaller compute footprint. Its 4.9% edge in the Geekbench Vulkan test suggests that architectural efficiency, driver optimization, or API-specific characteristics favor the Pascal design in this workload. Additionally, the Quadro P400 has a major advantage in pixel throughput: its 20.03 GPixel/s fill rate is 74% higher than the GTX 760M's 11.50 GPixel/s, despite having the same 16 ROPs. This makes the Quadro P400 better suited for tasks that are fill-rate bound rather than shader bound.

The two GPUs split the head-to-head benchmark slate exactly, each claiming one victory. The GTX 760M's win is by a much larger margin in OpenCL, while the Quadro P400's Vulkan win is comparatively narrow. When considering the average benchmark score, the GTX 760M holds a 551-point lead, which translates to roughly an 11.8% advantage overall. The Quadro P400 counters with a far better performance-per-watt profile, since its 30 W TDP is barely half the GTX 760M's 55 W draw.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 760M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106S chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Quadro P400 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. This generational gap is significant: Pascal launched several years after Kepler and incorporates architectural improvements in scheduling, memory compression, and API support.

The transistor counts reflect the different design philosophies. The GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The Quadro P400 crams 3,300 million transistors into just 132 mm², achieving 25.0M per mm², more than double the density. This is a direct consequence of the smaller 14 nm process node.

The shader configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 760M carries 768 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, while the Quadro P400 has only 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. The GTX 760M's compute resources are therefore 3x larger in shading units and 4x larger in TMUs, explaining its substantial lead in texture rate and FP32 throughput.

The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The newer API feature levels on the Quadro P400 reflect its later release and Pascal architecture, which was designed with modern graphics APIs in mind. The Quadro P400 also lists FP16 capability at 10.02 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a feature the GTX 760M does not report.

The Quadro P400 is a single-slot card with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a 150 mm length, whereas the GTX 760M uses an MXM module form factor with portable-device-dependent outputs. The Quadro P400 is designed for workstation integration with fixed display outputs, while the GTX 760M was built for laptops and mobile workstations.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every key specification. The GTX 760M has a base clock of 628 MHz with a boost of 719 MHz, while the Quadro P400 operates at a much higher 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the GTX 760M achieves higher raw compute due to its larger shader count.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the GTX 760M: 64.13 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s, with the GTX 760M using a 128-bit bus compared to the Quadro P400's 64-bit bus. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 at the same effective 4 Gbps memory speed.

Pixel rate favors the Quadro P400 at 20.03 GPixel/s versus 11.50 GPixel/s for the GTX 760M. Texture rate favors the GTX 760M at 46.02 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors the GTX 760M at 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS.

Power consumption strongly favors the Quadro P400 at 30 W versus 55 W for the GTX 760M. The Quadro P400 also specifies a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the GTX 760M has no such recommendation. The GTX 760M uses an MXM module slot, whereas the Quadro P400 is a single-slot PCIe card with dimensions of 150 mm length and 69 mm height.

Release dates differ by nearly four years: the GTX 760M launched on 2013-05-29, while the Quadro P400 launched on 2017-02-06. The GTX 760M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation with a GeForce 600M predecessor and GeForce 800M successor. The Quadro P400 belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation with a Quadro Maxwell predecessor and Quadro Volta successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test produces the most dramatic separation between these two GPUs. The GTX 760M scores 5604, while the Quadro P400 manages only 4249, giving the GTX 760M a 31.9% victory. This is the single largest delta in the comparison and aligns with the GTX 760M's 3x advantage in shading units and 4x advantage in TMUs. OpenCL workloads that can utilize the full shader array will see a major performance boost on the GTX 760M.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result. The Quadro P400 scores 5119 against the GTX 760M's 4868, a 4.9% margin in favor of the Pascal card. This is a notable outcome because the GTX 760M has far more compute hardware, yet the Quadro P400 still manages to win. The Vulkan result suggests that the Pascal architecture's newer API implementation, with Vulkan 1.4 support versus 1.2.175, provides tangible benefits in this workload.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 760M's 5236 average exceeds the Quadro P400's 4684 by 552 points, an 11.8% overall gap. The GTX 760M sits above several near rivals in the database: it is 0.5% ahead of the Quadro 4000M, 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, but 0.9% behind the GeForce 940M and 1.3% behind the GeForce GTX 980M. The Quadro P400, by contrast, is very close to its nearest rivals: 0.6% ahead of both the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320, 1.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 970M, and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX.

The percentile rankings reinforce this picture. The GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile. Both are relatively low in the overall GPU hierarchy, but the GTX 760M holds a consistent edge in aggregate performance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For applications that rely on OpenCL compute, shader throughput, or texture processing, the GTX 760M is the unambiguous choice. Its 31.9% lead in OpenCL, 768 shading units versus 256, and nearly double the FP32 throughput make it the stronger compute card. The GTX 760M also delivers more than double the memory bandwidth, which matters for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

For Vulkan-based applications or scenarios where pixel fill rate is the bottleneck, the Quadro P400 is the better option. Its 4.9% Vulkan win and 74% higher pixel rate demonstrate that the Pascal architecture extracts more performance per compute unit. The Quadro P400 also offers modern API support with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, plus fixed display outputs suitable for workstation deployment.

The Quadro P400 has a major efficiency advantage, consuming only 30 W versus 55 W for the GTX 760M. This nearly 2x difference in power draw, combined with the single-slot form factor and mini-DisplayPort outputs, positions the Quadro P400 as the better integrated workstation solution.

Users who prioritize raw compute and have workloads that scale with shader count should choose the GTX 760M. Users who need Vulkan performance, higher pixel throughput, lower power consumption, or a desktop workstation form factor should choose the Quadro P400. The overall average benchmark score favors the GTX 760M, but the Quadro P400's architectural advantages in specific workloads make it the more balanced choice for modern API-driven tasks.