NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 are both end-of-life parts from different market segments, and the benchmark data shows a clear, consistent advantage for the desktop-oriented GTX 780 in raw compute tests. The head-to-head results are limited to two synthetic workloads, but both tell the same story: the GTX 780 is the faster card, though the margin is not overwhelming. The data shows the GTX 780 leads by 12.6% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 14.5% in Geekbench Vulkan. These deltas place the Quadro M4000M’s average benchmark score of 20480 within a tight cluster of modern rivals, while the GTX 780’s average of 19164 sits near a different set of competitors, reflecting the distinct performance tiers these two GPUs occupy despite their similar overall percentiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most direct comparison comes from the two shared Geekbench tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 780 scores 22863 against the Quadro M4000M’s 19989, resulting in a -12.6% delta from the Quadro’s perspective. This means the GTX 780 is roughly 14.4% faster in this compute workload. The Vulkan test widens the gap slightly: the GTX 780 posts 24514, while the Quadro M4000M reaches 20971, a -14.5% delta. That translates to the GTX 780 being approximately 16.9% ahead in Vulkan compute. Both tests are synthetic compute benchmarks, not gaming frame-rate tests, so the results reflect raw throughput potential rather than real-world gameplay performance, which is not covered in the data.

The Quadro M4000M’s best showing in either test is its Vulkan score of 20971, which is still 3543 points behind the GTX 780’s Vulkan result. Conversely, the GTX 780’s weaker result is its OpenCL score of 22863, which still exceeds the Quadro’s strongest Vulkan score. The GTX 780 wins both head-to-head matchups, giving it a 2-0 record in winsA/winsB terms. The margins are consistent across both APIs, suggesting the performance gap is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental throughput difference. The Quadro M4000M’s average benchmark score of 20480 is higher than its individual OpenCL score but lower than its Vulkan score, while the GTX 780’s average of 19164 is notably lower than both of its individual scores — this is because the GTX 780 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 10114, which drags down its average, a test the Quadro does not have.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the Quadro M4000M’s average score of 20480 places it within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662), 0.5% behind the Intel Arc A750 (20582), 0.4% behind the Intel Arc B570 (20556), and 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534). The Quadro is essentially neck-and-neck with all four, with deltas ranging from -0.3% to -0.9%. Meanwhile, the GTX 780’s average of 19164 is similarly close to its rivals: 0.1% behind the NVIDIA TITAN Xp (19177), 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19089), 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049), and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036). This suggests that despite the GTX 780’s head-to-head win over the Quadro M4000M, both cards are effectively mid-pack performers relative to their own peer groups.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 is the faster GPU in every measured benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, and its wins are substantial enough to be meaningful for compute-oriented workloads. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on raw performance should pick the GTX 780. The Quadro M4000M, however, is not without its own strengths, primarily in efficiency and portability. The GTX 780 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W power supply, while the Quadro M4000M draws only 100 W and uses no external power connectors, fitting into an MXM module. This makes the Quadro a compelling choice for mobile workstations where power and space are constrained, even if it sacrifices compute performance.

The GTX 780’s launch MSRP was 649 USD, which is the only pricing information available for either card. The Quadro M4000M has no launch MSRP listed. From a pure performance-per-watt perspective, the data favors the Quadro: it delivers an average benchmark score of 20480 at 100 W, while the GTX 780 scores 19164 at 250 W. That means the Quadro produces a higher average score despite using 60% less power, although the GTX 780 wins in absolute performance. For users who need the highest possible compute scores and have the power budget and physical space, the GTX 780 is the clear choice. For those who need a capable GPU in a portable, low-power form factor, the Quadro M4000M is the only one of the two that fits that bill, and its performance is not drastically lower — it trails by roughly 13-15% in the head-to-head tests.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical: the Quadro M4000M sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 780 is at the 64th percentile. This indicates that, in the broader GPU landscape, these two cards perform at a very similar level relative to all other GPUs. The GTX 780’s wins are real but not transformative; it edges out the Quadro by a small margin in the overall hierarchy. The GTX 780’s nearest rivals include the TITAN Xp and RTX 4050 Mobile, while the Quadro’s nearest rivals include the RTX 3070 Mobile and Arc B570. This positions the GTX 780 as slightly more comparable to high-end desktop parts, while the Quadro aligns more with modern mobile and mid-range discrete GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and target different market segments. The Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the GTX 780 uses the GK110 chip based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the chip sizes and transistor counts differ significantly. The GTX 780’s GK110 die measures 561 mm² and packs 7,080 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The Quadro M4000M’s GM204 die is smaller at 398 mm², with 5,200 million transistors, giving it a higher density of 13.1M per mm². The Maxwell chip is more efficient in terms of transistors per area, which aligns with its lower power draw.

The memory configurations are another key differentiator. The Quadro M4000M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s, with memory clocked at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 780 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The GTX 780’s bandwidth advantage is substantial — it is 80% higher — which could benefit memory-intensive compute workloads, though the head-to-head benchmarks do not isolate this factor. The GTX 780 also has more raw compute resources: 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, compared to the Quadro’s 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro has more ROPs, but the GTX 780’s higher shading unit and TMU counts drive its FP32 throughput of 4.156 TFLOPS versus the Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS, a 60% advantage.

Clock speeds favor the Quadro in absolute terms: it runs at a base of 975 MHz with a boost of 1013 MHz, while the GTX 780 runs at 863 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. However, the GTX 780’s superior core configuration more than compensates for its lower clocks. Pixel and texture rates reflect this: the Quadro achieves 64.83 GPixel/s and 81.04 GTexel/s, while the GTX 780 achieves 43.30 GPixel/s and 173.2 GTexel/s. The GTX 780’s texture rate is more than double the Quadro’s, while the Quadro’s pixel rate is higher due to its 64 ROPs versus 48. The GTX 780 also supports a higher DirectX version (12 with 11_0 feature level) than the Quadro (12 with 12_1 feature level), though both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 780 supports 1.2.175.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M4000M has a higher average benchmark score of 20480, compared to the GTX 780’s 19164. However, the GTX 780 wins both head-to-head tests, because its average is lowered by an additional Metal benchmark score of 10114 that the Quadro does not have.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 780 in the shared benchmarks?

A: The GTX 780 is 12.6% faster in Geekbench OpenCL (22863 vs 19989) and 14.5% faster in Geekbench Vulkan (24514 vs 20971).

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M4000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses no external power connectors, fitting into an MXM module. The GTX 780 has a TDP of 250 W, requires a 600 W suggested power supply, and uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. The Quadro M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 780 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 780 has significantly more memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s, compared to the Quadro M4000M’s 160.4 GB/s. The GTX 780 uses a 384-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Quadro M4000M has a higher transistor density of 13.1M per mm², despite having fewer total transistors (5,200 million vs 7,080 million). The GTX 780 has a density of 12.6M per mm² on a larger 561 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780 wins in every measured benchmark, so its case is straightforward: it is the stronger compute performer. The data shows a 12.6% lead in OpenCL and a 14.5% lead in Vulkan, which would make it the better choice for any workload that relies on raw GPGPU throughput, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. Its higher FP32 throughput (4.156 TFLOPS vs 2.593 TFLOPS) and double the texture rate (173.2 GTexel/s vs 81.04 GTexel/s) support this conclusion. The GTX 780’s higher memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s) also suggests it would handle memory-bound tasks more effectively, though the benchmark data does not directly test this. For a desktop system with adequate power and cooling, the GTX 780 is the clear winner.

The Quadro M4000M wins in efficiency and form factor. It consumes 100 W versus the GTX 780’s 250 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for mobile workstations where the GTX 780’s dual-slot, 267 mm length, and 600 W PSU requirement would be impractical. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (64.83 GPixel/s vs 43.30 GPixel/s) due to its 64 ROPs, which could benefit certain rasterization tasks, though this is not reflected in the compute benchmarks. Additionally, the Quadro supports newer API versions — Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175 — which may provide better compatibility with future software. Its 4 GB of memory, while on a narrower bus, offers more capacity than the GTX 780’s 3 GB, which could be advantageous for larger datasets that fit within memory. For users who prioritize portability, power efficiency, and modern API support over raw compute speed, the Quadro M4000M is the better fit, even though it loses the head-to-head performance comparison.