NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 in every recorded head-to-head comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 against the GTX 780M's 12,769, a delta of 64.7% in favor of the Pascal-based card. The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro P4000 reaches 41,786 while the GTX 780M manages 12,696, a 69.6% advantage.

These are not marginal differences. The Quadro P4000 delivers roughly 2.8 times the OpenCL performance and roughly 3.3 times the Vulkan performance of the older Kepler part. The GTX 780M records zero wins across the shared benchmark suite, while the Quadro P4000 takes both. When placed against its nearest rivals, the GTX 780M sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 11,261. The Quadro P4000, despite its dominant head-to-head results, holds the 47th percentile with an average score of 9,665, reflecting a broader benchmark pool that includes less flattering tests.

The delta percentages in the head-to-head data are stark. A 64.7% deficit in OpenCL means the GTX 780M is operating at roughly one-third of the Quadro P4000's throughput in that workload. The Vulkan gap of 69.6% is even more punishing, indicating that the architectural leap from Kepler to Pascal fundamentally changes compute and graphics API efficiency. The GTX 780M's closest rivals in the database, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD FirePro W4300, both sit within 0.3% of its average score, confirming that the 780M is competitive with its direct contemporaries. Meanwhile, the Quadro P4000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 0.2% and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 0.3%, with the Tesla C2070 trailing by 0.5%, meaning the P4000's average score is tightly clustered among mid-range workstation and mobile parts.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is clear from the data. The Quadro P4000 dominates in modern API workloads, specifically OpenCL and Vulkan, which are the benchmarks where the two cards directly compete. The 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with a 1480 MHz boost clock and 64 ROPs, gives it a massive throughput advantage over the GTX 780M's 2.448 TFLOPS and 797 MHz boost. For compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated analytics, the Quadro P4000 is the only rational choice based on recorded scores.

The GTX 780M, however, is not without its strengths in context. Its average benchmark score of 11,261 actually exceeds the Quadro P4000's 9,665, a reversal driven by the different benchmark suites each card was tested with. The 780M's Geekbench scores, while lower in absolute terms than the P4000's, are consistent across OpenCL (12,769) and Vulkan (12,696), showing balanced performance in those specific tests. Its 50th percentile ranking places it above the P4000's 47th percentile, meaning that within the database's full GPU population, the older Kepler card holds a slightly higher standing relative to all recorded parts.

The Quadro P4000's additional benchmark coverage reveals more nuance. In Passmark tests, it scores 11,466 in G3D, 4,913 in GPU compute, and 786 in G2D. DirectX-specific Passmark results show 181 in DirectX 9, 86 in DirectX 11, 66 in DirectX 10, and 40 in DirectX 12. These numbers indicate that the P4000 is strongest in legacy DirectX 9 workloads and weakest in DirectX 12, which aligns with its Pascal architecture lacking dedicated hardware features for modern API overhead reduction. The GTX 780M has no recorded Passmark results, so any comparison there is impossible from the database.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior product for anyone prioritizing raw compute and modern API performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins exceeding 64%, and its architectural advantages, including a 16 nm process node, 7,200 million transistors, and 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, are reflected in the recorded scores. The GTX 780M, with its 28 nm Kepler design and 4 GB of memory, cannot match the P4000's throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story for general-purpose comparison. The GTX 780M's 11,261 average exceeds the P4000's 9,665, and its 50th percentile ranking beats the P4000's 47th. This suggests that within the database's full test suite, the 780M performs relatively better against the entire GPU landscape than the P4000 does, despite losing the direct comparisons. Buyers should weigh the specific workloads they intend to run. If the task involves OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro P4000 is the clear pick. If the user relies on a broader mix of applications where the 780M's balanced scores matter, the older card holds its own.

The Quadro P4000's launch MSRP was 815 USD. The GTX 780M has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The P4000 also offers a single-slot form factor, a 300 W suggested PSU, and four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a more flexible workstation solution. The GTX 780M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent display outputs, limiting its usability to laptops or specialized systems.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11,261, while the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has 9,665.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 41,786 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 69.6% higher than the GTX 780M's 12,696.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the GTX 780M in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD FirePro W4300 are both within 0.3% of the GTX 780M's average score.

Q: Does the Quadro P4000 support more memory than the GTX 780M?

A: Yes, the Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 780M has 4 GB.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 780M uses a 28 nm process node, while the Quadro P4000 uses a 16 nm process node.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance figure?

A: The Quadro P4000 reaches 5.304 TFLOPS, compared to the GTX 780M's 2.448 TFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 780M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The Quadro P4000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP104 chip, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.9 million per mm². This represents a near doubling of transistor count with only a modest increase in die size, reflecting the process shrink.

The shading unit counts differ: the GTX 780M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The P4000 trades some texture units for double the ROP count, which directly contributes to its pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s versus the 780M's 25.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors the P4000 at 165.8 GTexel/s against 102.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds show a significant jump. The GTX 780M runs at a base of 771 MHz with a boost of 797 MHz, while the Quadro P4000 operates at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the 780M and 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) for the P4000. The P4000's memory bandwidth reaches 243.3 GB/s, compared to 160.0 GB/s for the 780M, despite both using a 256-bit bus.

The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 780M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The P4000 also has a recorded FP16 performance of 82.88 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the 780M has no listed FP16 capability. The P4000 includes one 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, whereas the 780M has no power connectors and a TDP of 122 W against the P4000's 105 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, while the Quadro P4000 uses GP104 with Pascal. The process node is 28 nm versus 16 nm. Transistor count is 3,540 million versus 7,200 million. Die size is 294 mm² versus 314 mm². Transistor density is 12.0M per mm² versus 22.9M per mm².

Base clocks are 771 MHz versus 1202 MHz, boost clocks are 797 MHz versus 1480 MHz, and memory clocks are 1250 MHz versus 1901 MHz. Memory size is 4 GB versus 8 GB, both GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, but bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 243.3 GB/s. Shading units are 1,536 versus 1,792, TMUs are 128 versus 112, and ROPs are 32 versus 64. Pixel rate is 25.50 GPixel/s versus 94.72 GPixel/s, texture rate is 102.0 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 2.448 TFLOPS versus 5.304 TFLOPS.

The TDP is 122 W for the GTX 780M and 105 W for the Quadro P4000. The 780M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface as an MXM module, while the P4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 as a single-slot card. The 780M has no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the P4000 has one 6-pin connector and four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The P4000 has physical dimensions of 241 mm by 111 mm, while the 780M has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are May 2013 for the 780M and February 2017 for the P4000. The 780M's predecessor is GeForce 600M and successor is GeForce 800M, while the P4000's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and successor is Quadro Volta.