NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two mobile Kepler parts into very different usage profiles. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M appears in the database with a single OpenCL result of 5986, placing it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, by contrast, has three recorded results: OpenCL at 7176, Vulkan at 6714, and Metal at 2612. Its average benchmark score sits at 5501, which places it at the 32nd percentile.

The OpenCL head-to-head is the only directly comparable workload in the database, and the GTX 765M wins that contest outright with a 16.6% advantage. That is a decisive margin in a compute API that both GPUs support equally. For any application built around OpenCL compute, the data points firmly to the GeForce part.

However, the K4000M is not without its own territory. Its average benchmark score of 5986 is actually higher than the GTX 765M's average of 5501, even though the GTX 765M wins the individual OpenCL test. That discrepancy comes from the GTX 765M's weaker Metal and Vulkan results dragging down its average. The K4000M's single OpenCL score is monolithic, so its average equals that one result.

This suggests a use-case split. The GTX 765M is the stronger choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads, and it also brings Vulkan and Metal support with recorded scores of 6714 and 2612 respectively. The K4000M, with only OpenCL data available, cannot claim wins in those newer APIs. The Quadro name historically targets professional applications, and the data shows a GPU that delivers a consistent OpenCL result without the variability of the GTX 765M's multi-API spread.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs come from NVIDIA, both use the Kepler architecture, and both are built on TSMC's 28 nm process. The similarities end there. The K4000M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GTX 765M uses the smaller GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, for a density of 11.5 million per square millimeter.

The K4000M is the larger, more complex chip. It packs 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 765M counters with 768 shaders, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. That ROP disparity is significant: the K4000M has double the pixel processing hardware, yet the GTX 765M still manages a higher pixel rate of 13.81 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s. Clock speed explains that inversion.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The K4000M runs at a flat 601 MHz for both base and boost, an unusual locked configuration. The GTX 765M starts at 797 MHz and boosts to 863 MHz. That clock advantage lets the smaller GK106 chip reach 1,325.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the K4000M with more shaders tops out at 1,153.9 GFLOPS. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 55.23 GTexel/s for the GTX 765M versus 48.08 GTexel/s for the K4000M.

Memory configurations diverge substantially. The K4000M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 765M has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, capping at 64.13 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clock is listed at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective, while the GeForce runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. Faster memory clocks cannot overcome half the bus width.

Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both use MXM modules with MXM-B (3.0) interfaces and no power connectors. The K4000M carries a 100 W TDP, the GTX 765M draws 75 W. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The K4000M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation, while the GTX 765M sits in the GeForce 700M family.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has an average benchmark score of 5986, which is higher than the GTX 765M's average of 5501. However, the GTX 765M has three recorded benchmarks, while the K4000M has only one.

Q: Does the GTX 765M beat the K4000M in the OpenCL test?

A: Yes. The GTX 765M scores 7176 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the K4000M's 5986, a 16.6% advantage. That is the only head-to-head benchmark in the database.

Q: Why does the K4000M have a higher average score despite losing the OpenCL comparison?

A: The K4000M's average equals its single OpenCL score of 5986. The GTX 765M's average of 5501 is pulled down by its Metal result of 2612 and Vulkan result of 6714, which are lower than its OpenCL score.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K4000M has 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR5. The GTX 765M has 64.13 GB/s from a 128-bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both report DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 765M has recorded Vulkan and Metal benchmark scores, while the K4000M does not.

Q: Which GPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The GTX 765M runs at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost. The K4000M is locked at 601 MHz for both base and boost.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The chip design is the most fundamental split: GK104 versus GK106. Transistor count favors the K4000M at 3,540 million versus 2,540 million, and die size follows with 294 mm² versus 221 mm². Transistor density is close, 12.0M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm², but the K4000M edges ahead.

Clock speeds favor the GTX 765M heavily. Base clocks are 601 MHz versus 797 MHz, a 196 MHz gap. Boost clocks are 601 MHz versus 863 MHz, a 262 MHz gap. The K4000M has no boost headroom at all. Memory clocks also favor the GeForce at 1002 MHz versus 700 MHz, with effective rates of 4 Gbps versus 2.8 Gbps.

Compute resources split in the K4000M's favor for raw hardware counts: 960 shaders versus 768, 80 TMUs versus 64, and 32 ROPs versus 16. Yet the GTX 765M wins the derived rates. Pixel rate goes to the GeForce at 13.81 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s. Texture rate goes to the GeForce at 55.23 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s. FP32 compute goes to the GeForce at 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS.

Memory capacity and bandwidth go to the K4000M. It has 4 GB versus 2 GB, a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, and 89.60 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s. Power consumption favors the GTX 765M at 75 W versus 100 W. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Release timing differs by roughly a year: the K4000M launched on May 31, 2012, and the GTX 765M on May 29, 2013. Both are end-of-life products. The K4000M's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 765M's predecessor is the GeForce 600M and its successor is the GeForce 800M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 765M scores 7176 against the K4000M's 5986, a 16.6% delta in favor of the GeForce. That is a substantial margin, especially given the K4000M's larger chip and double the ROP count.

The result is counterintuitive at first glance. The K4000M has 960 shaders versus 768, 80 TMUs versus 64, and 32 ROPs versus 16. It also has more memory and more bandwidth. Yet the GTX 765M wins by a wide margin. The explanation lies in clocks. The GeForce runs at 863 MHz boost versus the Quadro's locked 601 MHz. That 262 MHz difference more than compensates for the Quadro's extra hardware.

FP32 numbers confirm this. The GTX 765M reaches 1,325.6 GFLOPS, the K4000M only 1,153.9 GFLOPS. The GeForce is roughly 15% ahead in raw compute, which tracks closely with its 16.6% OpenCL advantage. The GTX 765M also wins pixel rate (13.81 versus 12.02 GPixel/s) and texture rate (55.23 versus 48.08 GTexel/s).

The K4000M's only advantages in the measured data are average benchmark score, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and transistor count. None of those translate into a benchmark win. The average score advantage is a statistical artifact of the GTX 765M's weaker Metal and Vulkan results, not a sign of overall superiority.

The GTX 765M's Vulkan score of 6714 is notable. It is close to its OpenCL score of 7176, suggesting consistent compute performance across APIs. Its Metal score of 2612 is much lower, indicating that Apple's Metal API does not extract the same throughput from this Kepler chip. The K4000M has no recorded Vulkan or Metal results, so no comparison is possible there.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For OpenCL compute workloads, the GTX 765M is the superior part, beating the K4000M by 16.6% in the only direct benchmark. Its higher clocks and lower TDP make it the more efficient choice for compute tasks that scale with raw throughput. The 75 W power draw versus 100 W reinforces this: the GeForce delivers more performance while consuming less power.

The K4000M's case rests on memory and capacity. Its 4 GB frame buffer and 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth are double the GTX 765M's 2 GB and 64.13 GB/s. For workloads that need large working sets or high memory bandwidth, such as certain professional visualization tasks, the Quadro's memory subsystem is the stronger asset. Its 256-bit bus provides headroom that the GTX 765M's 128-bit bus cannot match.

The GTX 765M also offers broader API coverage in the recorded data. It has Vulkan and Metal scores, while the K4000M only has OpenCL. Buyers targeting Vulkan-based applications, where the GTX 765M scores 6714, have no comparable data point for the K4000M. That makes the GeForce the safer choice for multi-API environments.

The K4000M's locked 601 MHz clock is a liability. Even with more shaders, TMUs, and ROPs, it cannot out-compute a smaller chip running 262 MHz faster. The GTX 765M's boost clock of 863 MHz is the deciding factor in every measured compute metric.

Users who prioritize raw OpenCL throughput, lower power consumption, and multi-API support should choose the GTX 765M. Users who need 4 GB of memory, wider bandwidth, and a professional Quadro pedigree should choose the K4000M. The benchmark data cannot validate the Quadro's compute superiority, but it can validate its memory capacity. Choose accordingly.