NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M records an average benchmark score of 5,501, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 records 4,979. The GTX 765M sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 765M scores 7,176 versus the Quadro 4000's 4,979, a 44.1% advantage for the mobile GeForce part. That is the sole direct comparison in the database, and it favors the GTX 765M decisively.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card in the database rankings?

A: The GTX 765M's closest rivals are the GeForce MX130 (average score 5,508, delta -0.1%), the Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, delta 0.3%), the Quadro M4000 (5,467, delta 0.6%), and the FirePro M4000 (5,537, delta -0.7%). The Quadro 4000's closest rivals are the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970, delta 0.2%), the Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998, delta -0.4%), the Radeon R5 M430 (5,018, delta -0.8%), and the Radeon R7 M360 (4,931, delta 1%).

Q: Which GPU has the larger die and more transistors?

A: The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The Quadro is physically much larger, but the GTX 765M packs a higher transistor density of 11.5M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5. The GTX 765M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth and 4 Gbps effective memory speed. The Quadro 4000 uses a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth and 2.8 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The GTX 765M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro 4000 lists no Vulkan version. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M as the stronger performer in every measured category. Its average benchmark score of 5,501 exceeds the Quadro 4000's 4,979 by roughly 10.5%, and the single head-to-head OpenCL result shows a 44.1% gap. The GTX 765M also holds a higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 29th) among all GPUs.

However, the Quadro 4000 is not without its own case. It offers a wider 256-bit memory bus and substantially higher memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s), which historically matters in bandwidth-sensitive professional workloads. The Quadro also has twice the ROP count (32 versus 16), which can benefit certain rendering and composition tasks. But the recorded benchmarks do not include any test where the Quadro 4000 wins.

For a user choosing strictly on measured scores, the GTX 765M is the clear pick. For a user whose workload depends on memory bandwidth or ROP throughput, the Quadro 4000's architectural advantages are worth considering, but the database shows no benchmark where that translates into a performance win.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 765M scores 7,176, and the Quadro 4000 scores 4,979. That is a 44.1% margin, a substantial gap that cannot be explained by minor clock or driver differences.

The GTX 765M's advantage in OpenCL is consistent with its broader compute specifications. It carries 768 shading units versus 256 on the Quadro 4000, and its FP32 throughput is listed at 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. The Quadro 4000's lower shader count and older Fermi architecture place it at a significant compute disadvantage.

Texture throughput also favors the GTX 765M heavily. The mobile part records 55.23 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000, a 3.6x difference. Pixel rate favors the GTX 765M as well, 13.81 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s, though the Quadro's higher ROP count narrows that gap relative to what the texture numbers suggest.

The Quadro 4000's only clear statistical edge in the recorded data is memory bandwidth: 89.86 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s, a 40% advantage. That could matter in workloads that stream large data sets, but no benchmark in the database captures such a scenario for this pair.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK106 | GF100 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 3,100 million |

| Die size | 221 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor density | 11.5M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 797 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost clock | 863 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory clock | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 89.86 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 256 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 13.81 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 55.23 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 1,325.6 GFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 142 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| DirectX support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Release date | 2013-05-29 | 2010-11-01 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 1,199 USD |

The two cards differ in nearly every physical and architectural dimension. The GTX 765M is a 28 nm Kepler part designed for MXM mobile modules, while the Quadro 4000 is a 40 nm Fermi desktop workstation card on PCIe 2.0 x16. The Quadro draws nearly double the power (142 W versus 75 W) and requires a 6-pin power connector plus a 300 W suggested PSU, whereas the GTX 765M uses no external power connector.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 765M is built on Kepler, NVIDIA's architecture that arrived roughly three years after Fermi. The 28 nm TSMC process allows the GK106 chip to fit 2,540 million transistors into just 221 mm², yielding a density of 11.5M transistors per mm². The Quadro 4000's GF100 chip, fabricated on 40 nm, packs more transistors overall (3,100 million) but requires a 529 mm² die, nearly two and a half times larger, with a density of only 5.9M per mm².

The compute architecture differs dramatically. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units and 64 texture units, while the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units and 32 texture units. The Quadro compensates with 32 ROPs versus 16 on the GTX 765M, a doubling that suggests a different design emphasis: the Quadro targets fill-rate and memory throughput, while the GTX 765M prioritizes raw shader and texture throughput.

Clock behavior also diverges. The GTX 765M lists base and boost clocks of 797 MHz and 863 MHz, respectively. The Quadro 4000 lists neither base nor boost clocks in the database. Its memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) compared to the GTX 765M's 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), though the Quadro's wider 256-bit bus results in higher overall bandwidth.

Feature support shows a generational split. The GTX 765M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support; the Quadro 4000 lists none. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, which is notable for a Fermi-era card. The GTX 765M is an 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.

Power and physical design reflect their intended environments. The GTX 765M consumes 75 W and needs no power connector, making it suitable for laptops. The Quadro 4000 consumes 142 W, requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, and measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 765M wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 1,325.6 GFLOPS is roughly 2.7 times the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS. Its shading unit count (768 versus 256) and texture rate (55.23 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s) reinforce this dominance. In the only direct benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, it wins by 44.1%. The GTX 765M also wins on pixel rate (13.81 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s), despite having half the ROPs, because its clock speeds and shader throughput compensate.

The Quadro 4000 wins on memory bandwidth. Its 89.86 GB/s is 40% higher than the GTX 765M's 64.13 GB/s, enabled by a 256-bit bus compared to 128-bit. It also has double the ROPs (32 versus 16), which can benefit workloads that perform heavy blending or depth operations. These advantages do not appear in the recorded benchmarks, but they are real architectural differences that could matter in specialized workstation tasks.

The GTX 765M also wins on efficiency metrics. It delivers a higher average benchmark score (5,501 versus 4,979) while drawing 75 W versus the Quadro's 142 W, and it requires no external power connector. The Quadro 4000 was launched at a 1,199 USD MSRP, though the database lists no price for the GTX 765M.

For users targeting OpenCL compute, the GTX 765M is the only choice based on the 44.1% head-to-head margin. For users whose work is bandwidth-bound and ROP-limited, the Quadro 4000's bandwidth and bus width offer theoretical advantages, but no benchmark evidence supports a win in favor. The GTX 765M wins in every measured category, and the Quadro 4000's case rests on specifications alone.