NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The data shows a decisive generational and performance-class gap between the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M. In the two shared benchmark workloads, the Quadro P4000 wins outright, with margins that underscore its position as a workstation part versus a mobile entry-level chip. The GTX 850M, while competent in its own era, is outclassed in every measurable metric where both cards have data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparisons available are in Geekbench compute tests, and the results are not close. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 against the GTX 850M’s 9,821. That is a 268.7% advantage for the Quadro, meaning it delivers roughly 3.7 times the raw compute throughput in this API. This is not a marginal win; it is a full class separation, consistent with the Quadro’s desktop-oriented design and far larger memory subsystem.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The Quadro P4000 posts 41,786, while the GTX 850M manages 8,782. The delta here is 375.8% — nearly 4.8 times the score. Vulkan’s lower overhead tends to favor architectures with more shading units and higher memory bandwidth, both of which are heavily in the Quadro’s favor. For any workload leveraging Vulkan, the Quadro is in a different league entirely.

Across the two head-to-head tests, the Quadro P4000 claims 2 wins and the GTX 850M has 0 wins. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Quadro averages 9,665 across all its tested workloads, while the GTX 850M averages 9,302. That overall gap is smaller than the Geekbench deltas because the Quadro’s PassMark results are mixed — its DirectX 12 score is low at 40, and its DirectX 10 score is just 66. But in the compute-centric tests that matter for professional use, the Quadro dominates.

FAQ

Q: Is the Quadro P4000 faster than the GTX 850M in all benchmarks?

A: Yes. In the two shared tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the Quadro P4000 wins both. It leads by 268.7% in OpenCL and 375.8% in Vulkan. There are no shared tests where the GTX 850M comes out ahead.

Q: How do these cards compare to their immediate rivals?

A: The Quadro P4000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 9,665. Its closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, which scores 9,653 — a 0.1% difference. The GTX 850M is at the 46th percentile, averaging 9,302, and its nearest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9,294 (0.1% ahead). The GTX 850M also trails the AMD Radeon R7 M380 by 0.1%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 850M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with just 32.03 GB/s. That is a massive difference in both capacity and speed, directly impacting compute and texture-heavy tasks.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, while the GTX 850M is limited to 11_0. The Quadro also has explicit FP16 support at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64), whereas the GTX 850M has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro P4000 was released in early 2017 and succeeded the Quadro Maxwell line, with the Quadro Volta as its successor. The GTX 850M launched in early 2014, following the GeForce 700M series, and was succeeded by the GeForce 900M line.

Q: What about power and physical size?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a 105 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and is a single-slot card. The GTX 850M has a 45 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is an integrated GPU (IGP) for laptops. The Quadro is a desktop card, while the GTX 850M is designed for portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro P4000 uses the Pascal architecture (chip GP104), built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 850M uses the older Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), also from TSMC but on a 28 nm node. This node shrink allows the Pascal chip to pack 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M / mm². The Maxwell chip has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of just 12.6M / mm².

The compute resources differ by a wide margin. The Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 850M has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 14.43 GPixel/s for the GTX 850M. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 165.8 GTexel/s against 36.08 GTexel/s.

Floating-point performance is where the gap becomes stark. The Quadro P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GTX 850M manages just 1,154.6 GFLOPS (roughly 1.15 TFLOPS). The Quadro also has a dedicated FP16 path at 82.88 GFLOPS, which the GTX 850M lacks entirely. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as those features came later.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every specification that matters. The Quadro P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, while the GTX 850M has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are also different: the Quadro runs at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 850M runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is a clear differentiator: 8 GB on the Quadro versus 2 GB on the GTX 850M. The memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3, and the bus widths are 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth figures are 243.3 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s — a roughly 7.6x difference.

The physical form factors are entirely different. The Quadro P4000 is a single-slot, 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a 105 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. It requires a 300 W power supply. The GTX 850M is an IGP with no dimensions, no power connectors, and a 45 W TDP. Display outputs differ too: the Quadro has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 850M is "Portable Device Dependent," meaning outputs vary by laptop design.

The release dates are three years apart: the GTX 850M came out in March 2014, and the Quadro P4000 in February 2017. The Quadro has a listed launch MSRP of 815 USD; the GTX 850M has no MSRP data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Quadro P4000 is the superior card in every shared test, with margins of 268.7% and 375.8% in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, respectively. Its 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth place it firmly in professional workstation territory. The GTX 850M, with 1,154.6 GFLOPS, 2 GB of DDR3, and 32.03 GB/s bandwidth, is a low-power laptop part from an older generation.

The average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The Quadro P4000 averages 9,665 overall, but its PassMark DirectX scores are weak — 40 in DirectX 12 and 66 in DirectX 10. This means the Quadro is not a gaming card; its strengths lie in compute and professional OpenGL/Vulkan workloads. The GTX 850M, averaging 9,302, is more balanced for its class but cannot compete in raw throughput.

The Quadro’s percentile ranking (47th) is only one point higher than the GTX 850M’s (46th). That suggests that while the Quadro is clearly faster in compute, neither card is anywhere near the top of the overall GPU hierarchy. The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (0.2% ahead), which shows it is a mid-tier workstation card. The GTX 850M’s rivals are similarly positioned, with the GeForce GTX 465 and Radeon R7 M380 within 0.1%.

For a professional user running compute-heavy applications, the Quadro P4000 is the only choice between these two. The GTX 850M is simply not in the same performance class, and its lack of FP16 support and lower memory bandwidth would bottleneck modern workloads. For a laptop user with light 3D or compute needs, the GTX 850M is adequate for its era, but it is obsolete by modern standards.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins in every scenario where raw compute and memory bandwidth matter. Its 36,212 OpenCL score and 41,786 Vulkan score make it suitable for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and professional CAD workloads. The 8 GB memory capacity and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle large datasets and high-resolution textures without swapping. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also make it a practical choice for multi-monitor professional setups.

The GTX 850M has no benchmark wins against the Quadro, but it has its own niche. Its 45 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it can be integrated into thin laptops without dedicated power connectors. For portable systems where battery life and thermals are priorities, the GTX 850M is a sensible option — just not a fast one. Its 2 GB of DDR3 memory is enough for basic 3D acceleration and older games, but it will struggle with modern titles or compute tasks.

In terms of rivalry positioning, the Quadro P4000 edges out the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 by 0.1% in average score, while the GTX 850M is 0.1% behind the GeForce GTX 465 and 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M380. The Quadro also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M by 0.2% — a notable result, as the 960M is a more recent mobile part. The GTX 850M, meanwhile, trails the AMD Radeon Vega 8 by 0.9%, showing that even integrated graphics from later generations can challenge it.

For a desktop workstation, the Quadro P4000 is the clear pick. For a legacy laptop, the GTX 850M is what it is — a low-power part that was never designed for heavy compute. The data does not support any other conclusion.