NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two Kepler GPUs into different roles. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins two of the three recorded head-to-head tests, while the GeForce GTX 765M takes one. That split tells a clear story about intended use.

The Quadro K4000 dominates in GeekBench Metal with a score of 4166 against the GTX 765M's 2612, a 59.5% advantage. That is not a small gap; it is the single largest margin in any test between these two cards. For any workload that relies on Apple's Metal API, such as compute tasks in creative applications or certain game engines on macOS, the Quadro is the obvious pick. The K4000 also edges ahead in GeekBench Vulkan, scoring 6964 versus 6714, a 3.7% lead. Vulkan is increasingly common in cross-platform games and professional visualization tools, so this win matters for modern software compatibility.

The GTX 765M strikes back in GeekBench OpenCL, scoring 7176 against the K4000's 6816, a 5% margin. OpenCL is still widely used in video encoding, physics simulations, and older creative suites. If your specific application is OpenCL-bound, the mobile GeForce actually outperforms the desktop Quadro despite its lower overall average score.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the K4000 posts 5982 across all tests, while the GTX 765M sits at 5501. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile rank at 34 versus the GTX 765M's 32. The nearest rivals confirm the positioning: the K4000 sits within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M and within 0.1% of the Quadro K4000M, while the GTX 765M trades blows with the GeForce MX130 and Quadro M4000. Neither card is a top-tier performer by modern standards, but the data consistently favors the Quadro in API-specific tests that matter for professional workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental silicon. The K4000 and GTX 765M both use the GK106 chip on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Transistor counts are identical at 2,540 million, and the die size matches at 221 mm², giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm² for both. If you were hoping for a radically different GPU underneath, the data does not support that.

The differences appear in how NVIDIA configured that silicon. The K4000 ships with 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 765M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a narrower 128-bit bus, and its bandwidth drops to 64.13 GB/s. That is a massive difference: the Quadro has more than double the memory bandwidth. For texture-heavy workloads, large datasets, or high-resolution frame buffers, the K4000 has a structural advantage that no clock speed can fully compensate for.

Shading units and texture units are identical: 768 shaders and 64 TMUs on both cards. The ROP count differs, though. The K4000 has 24 ROPs, while the GTX 765M has only 16. That is a 50% difference in pixel processing capacity, which partially explains the K4000's stronger Metal performance. Interestingly, the GTX 765M posts a higher pixel rate at 13.81 GPixel/s versus the K4000's 12.96 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 55.23 GTexel/s versus 51.84 GTexel/s. The GTX 765M's boost clock of 863 MHz and base clock of 797 MHz give it a frequency edge; the K4000's clocks are not listed in the database. The GTX 765M also achieves higher FP32 compute at 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS.

Memory clocks tell the same story. The K4000 runs its memory at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 765M runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). But the K4000's wider bus compensates for the lower per-pin speed, resulting in that bandwidth advantage. The GTX 765M cannot overcome its narrower bus with higher clocks.

Form factor and power delivery also separate these parts. The K4000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 250 W, drawing 80 W TDP. The GTX 765M is an MXM module with no power connectors, drawing 75 W TDP, designed for laptops and portable devices. The K4000 measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the GTX 765M has no listed dimensions because it is a mobile module. Display outputs reflect this: the K4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 765M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175 on both. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores. The K4000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation and was released on February 28, 2013. The GTX 765M is from the GeForce 700M generation, released on May 29, 2013. Both are end-of-life products. The K4000's launch MSRP is 1,269 USD; the GTX 765M has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeekBench Metal test produces the most lopsided result in this comparison. The K4000 scores 4166, the GTX 765M scores 2612. The Quadro leads by 59.5%. No other test comes close to this margin. If your software stack uses Metal, this is not a close call.

GeekBench OpenCL flips the script. The GTX 765M scores 7176, the K4000 scores 6816. The GeForce leads by 5%. This is the only test where the mobile card wins, and it does so despite having half the memory bandwidth and fewer ROPs. The higher FP32 throughput and faster clocks on the GTX 765M likely drive this result.

GeekBench Vulkan is a narrow victory for the K4000. It scores 6964 against the GTX 765M's 6714, a 3.7% lead. This is within the range where driver optimizations or specific workload characteristics could shift the outcome, but the recorded data consistently favors the Quadro.

Across all three tests, the K4000 wins two and the GTX 765M wins one. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 5982 for the K4000 versus 5501 for the GTX 765M. The percentile ranks place the K4000 at 34 and the GTX 765M at 32, both firmly in the lower-middle range of all GPUs. The nearest rival data shows the K4000 sitting within 0.2% of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server's average score, which is a quirk of the database's scoring curve rather than a meaningful comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K4000. It has 134.8 GB/s over a 192-bit bus, while the GTX 765M has 64.13 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are these cards the same GPU?

A: Yes, both use the GK106 chip on the Kepler architecture with 2,540 million transistors on a 28 nm process. The configuration differs: the K4000 has 24 ROPs and 3 GB memory, the GTX 765M has 16 ROPs and 2 GB memory.

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The GeForce GTX 765M. It scores 7176 in GeekBench OpenCL versus the K4000's 6816, a 5% advantage.

Q: Can the GTX 765M be installed in a desktop tower?

A: No. It is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The K4000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The K4000 has fixed outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 765M's outputs depend entirely on the host laptop.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The K4000 is rated at 80 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 765M is rated at 75 W TDP with no suggested PSU listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. Choose the Quadro K4000 if your work is Metal-centric, if you need more than 2 GB of VRAM, or if you require a desktop card with fixed display outputs. The 59.5% Metal lead is decisive, and the 3.7% Vulkan win plus the 134.8 GB/s bandwidth make it the better all-round professional card. The K4000 also has more ROPs (24 versus 16), which helps with pixel-heavy workloads and multi-monitor setups. Its launch MSRP is 1,269 USD, but the recorded benchmark scores justify that positioning relative to the GTX 765M.

Choose the GeForce GTX 765M if your primary compute API is OpenCL and you need maximum FP32 throughput. Its 1,325.6 GFLOPS and higher pixel/texture rates give it a raw compute edge that shows up in the OpenCL score. It is also a mobile part, so it fits in laptops where the K4000 cannot go. The 5% OpenCL win is real, but it is the only test where the GTX 765M leads.

For anyone building a desktop workstation, the K4000 wins on two of three tests, holds a higher average score, and offers more memory and bandwidth. The GTX 765M is only the better choice in a laptop context where its MXM form factor is required and your software is OpenCL-bound. The overall benchmark average favors the K4000 by 481 points, and the percentile ranking agrees. Neither card is fast by modern standards, but within this specific comparison, the Quadro is the stronger product.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M |

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

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | GeForce 700M |

| Release Date | February 28, 2013 | May 29, 2013 |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 64.13 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 863 MHz |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 13.81 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 55.23 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 1,325.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | Not listed |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not listed |

| Launch MSRP | 1,269 USD | Not listed |

Shared specifications: both use GK106 on Kepler, TSMC 28 nm process, 2,540 million transistors, 221 mm² die, 11.5M / mm² density, 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, GDDR5 memory type, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175, no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and end-of-life production status.