NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras and design philosophies. The GTX 765M, a Kepler-based consumer part from the GeForce 700M generation, targets gaming performance, while the Quadro 4000M, a Fermi-based workstation part from the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, is built for professional applications. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 765M holding a 37.7% lead in the only shared test, but the two cards differ substantially in architecture, memory configuration, and target use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 5,501, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M’s 5,211. This places the GTX 765M in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M sits in the 30th percentile.

Q: How do they compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 765M scores 7,176, while the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. This results in a 37.7% win for the GTX 765M, which is the only benchmark where both cards were tested.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip on a 28 nm process with a Kepler architecture, while the Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip on a 40 nm process with a Fermi architecture. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, whereas the Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Q: Do the cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but they differ significantly in bus width and bandwidth. The GTX 765M has a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000M has a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The GTX 765M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5M / mm². The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die, giving it a lower density of 5.9M / mm².

Q: Which card has a higher power draw?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a higher TDP of 100 W, while the GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors and are rated for portable device-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for raw compute performance: pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. It wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a 37.7% margin and holds a higher average benchmark score of 5,501 versus 5,211 for the Quadro 4000M. The GTX 765M also offers superior pixel and texture rates, with 13.81 GPixel/s and 55.23 GTexel/s, compared to the Quadro 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance of 1,325.6 GFLOPS is more than double the Quadro’s 638.4 GFLOPS.

However, the Quadro 4000M is not without merit. It features a wider 256-bit memory bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the GTX 765M’s 64.13 GB/s. It also has double the ROPs, 32 versus 16, which could benefit certain rasterization-heavy workloads. The Quadro’s Fermi architecture, while older, was designed for professional stability and precision, though the benchmark data does not include professional-specific tests. For users strictly seeking higher benchmark scores and raw throughput, the GTX 765M is the clear winner. For those needing wider memory bandwidth and more ROPs in a workstation context, the Quadro 4000M offers those specific traits, but the performance gap in the available data is substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 765M scores 7,176 and the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. This yields a 37.7% delta in favor of the GTX 765M, a commanding lead that underscores the generational leap from Fermi to Kepler. This result aligns with the GTX 765M’s higher average benchmark score of 5,501, which is 5.6% above the Quadro’s 5,211. The GTX 765M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, has an average score of 5,508, just 0.1% higher, while the Quadro 4000M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, scores 5,236, which is 0.5% higher than the Quadro. In the OpenCL test, the GTX 765M’s 7,176 score far exceeds its average, suggesting it scales well in compute-heavy tasks, whereas the Quadro 4000M’s 5,211 score matches its average exactly, indicating consistent but limited performance. The GTX 765M also has additional benchmark data points, with a Geekbench Metal score of 2,612 and a Vulkan score of 6,714, whereas the Quadro 4000M has no such tests recorded, further limiting the comparison to OpenCL only.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every technical specification except for memory size, type, and form factor. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and use an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, but the GTX 765M has a 128-bit memory bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000M has a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 765M’s base clock is 797 MHz with a boost clock of 863 MHz, while the Quadro 4000M has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks also differ, with the GTX 765M running at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all different: 768/64/16 for the GTX 765M and 336/56/32 for the Quadro 4000M. The GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W. Process node, chip, architecture, transistor count, die size, and density all differ, as detailed in the architecture section. The GTX 765M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed. DirectX and OpenGL support are identical at 12 (11_0) and 4.6, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 765M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 11.5M / mm². In contrast, the Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, also from TSMC but on a larger 40 nm process. This older node houses 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 5.9M / mm². The Kepler architecture in the GTX 765M is more efficient, delivering higher clock speeds and significantly more shading units (768 versus 336) and TMUs (64 versus 56). The Quadro 4000M counters with more ROPs (32 versus 16) and a wider memory bus, which are traditional strengths for workstation tasks. The GTX 765M’s FP32 performance of 1,325.6 GFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro’s 638.4 GFLOPS, a direct result of the newer architecture and higher shader count. The GTX 765M also features Vulkan API support (1.2.175), while the Quadro 4000M lacks any Vulkan support, reflecting its older design. Both cards are end-of-life, but the GTX 765M is newer, with a release date of 2013-05-29, versus the Quadro’s 2011-02-21. The GTX 765M is part of the GeForce 700M generation, succeeding the GeForce 600M and preceding the GeForce 800M, while the Quadro 4000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M series, succeeding the Quadro FX Mobile and preceding the Quadro Kepler-M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins decisively in raw computational performance. It has a 37.7% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test and a higher average benchmark score overall. Its pixel rate of 13.81 GPixel/s and texture rate of 55.23 GTexel/s are more than double the Quadro 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s, making it better suited for gaming and graphics-intensive tasks. The GTX 765M also has a lower TDP of 75 W versus 100 W, which is advantageous for mobile thermal management. Its 768 shading units provide ample parallel processing power, and the Vulkan support opens up modern API compatibility.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in memory bandwidth and ROP count. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, thanks to a 256-bit bus, exceeds the GTX 765M’s 64.13 GB/s, which can benefit workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive. The 32 ROPs, double the GTX 765M’s 16, may improve fill-rate-bound scenarios. The Quadro’s Fermi architecture, while older, was designed for professional stability, and its higher TDP suggests it was intended for larger, less power-constrained chassis. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the available data, as the Quadro 4000M records zero wins against the GTX 765M’s single win. For users prioritizing memory throughput and raster operations in a professional setting, the Quadro 4000M offers those specific features, but the GTX 765M is the superior choice based on every measurable performance metric in the fact pack.