NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a decisive outcome: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the overwhelmingly stronger GPU in every measurable category. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 points against the GeForce GTX 950A’s 10,273 points, a delta of -71.6% for the older card. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural gap made visible by raw compute throughput.

The GeForce GTX 950A should only be considered by users constrained to the MXM module form factor for portable or embedded systems, where its 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors are practical advantages. The Quadro P4000, meanwhile, is the clear choice for any desktop workstation task requiring substantial compute, large memory capacity, or professional display output. The P4000’s 8 GB GDDR5 memory at 243.3 GB/s bandwidth versus the GTX 950A’s 2 GB DDR3 at 32.03 GB/s is a chasm that no driver optimization can bridge.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations built on different process nodes. The GeForce GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip based on Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. This node shrink allows the P4000 to pack 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The GTX 950A, by contrast, contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6M per mm².

Core resources differ massively. The Quadro P4000 ships with 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The GeForce GTX 950A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is roughly 2.8 times the shader count, 2.8 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs on the P4000. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the P4000 runs at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost, while the GTX 950A runs at 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Combined with the higher core count, the P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 950A.

Memory architecture is another generational leap. The P4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 243.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.03 GB/s. The P4000’s memory clock is 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 950A runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The P4000 also offers FP16 compute at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature absent from the GTX 950A, which lists no FP16 capability.

Form factor and interface differ fundamentally. The GTX 950A is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable devices with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro P4000 is a single-slot, 241 mm (9.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall card using PCIe 3.0 x16, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The P4000 requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 950A draws 75 W TDP with no power connectors. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though the P4000’s DirectX 12 support is at feature level 12_1 versus the GTX 950A’s 11_0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is stark. The Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 points, while the GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273 points, giving the P4000 a 71.6% advantage. To put that in context, the GTX 950A’s nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362, +0.9% relative to the GTX 950A), the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400, +1.2%), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, +2%). The GTX 950A sits near the 48th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it is roughly average in the broader landscape.

The Quadro P4000’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average benchmark score is 9,665, and it sits at the 47th percentile. Its closest competitors are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, +0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, +0.2%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637, +0.3%). The P4000’s average is dragged down by a wide spread of Passmark scores: it scores 11,466 in Passmark G3D but only 40 in Passmark DirectX 12 and 66 in Passmark DirectX 10. The Geekbench OpenCL score, however, is where the P4000 excels, and it is 3.5 times higher than the GTX 950A’s.

Other P4000 benchmark data shows a robust profile: 41,786 in Geekbench Vulkan, 4,913 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 786 in Passmark G2D. The GTX 950A has no equivalent data beyond its single OpenCL score, so cross-comparison is limited. What is clear is that in the one test both cards share, the P4000 wins by a margin so large that the GTX 950A’s 48th percentile ranking looks misleadingly close to the P4000’s 47th percentile. The percentile figures reflect the entire benchmark suite, but the head-to-head result is unambiguous.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GeForce GTX 950A. The P4000 leads by a factor of roughly 3.7.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 243.3 GB/s bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The GeForce GTX 950A has 32.03 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The P4000 offers about 7.6 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GeForce GTX 950A has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors, suitable for MXM modules. The Quadro P4000 has a 105 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Q: Which card has better DirectX 12 support?

A: The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, while the GeForce GTX 950A supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The GeForce GTX 950A is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) interface, designed for portable devices. The Quadro P4000 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm, with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How does the Geekbench OpenCL score compare between the two?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 36,212, while the GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273. The P4000 wins by 71.6% in this head-to-head test.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins in every performance domain measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 71.6% ahead. Its Vulkan score of 41,786 indicates strong compute and graphics potential under modern APIs. Its Passmark G3D score of 11,466 suggests solid 3D rendering capability, while its Passmark GPU Compute score of 4,913 shows respectable general-purpose compute. The P4000’s 8 GB GDDR5 memory and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth make it the clear choice for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-display professional workloads. Its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs further position it as a workstation card for multi-monitor setups.

The GeForce GTX 950A, by contrast, has no benchmark wins. Its single OpenCL score of 10,273 places it in the same performance tier as the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362, +0.9%) and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400, +1.2%), meaning it is competitive with those older or lower-tier parts but not with the P4000. Its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor are its only advantages: it can fit in portable devices where a single-slot PCIe card cannot, and it requires no auxiliary power. For any task that fits within 2 GB of DDR3 memory and does not need modern display outputs, the GTX 950A is a functional, low-power option.

Where the P4000 wins decisively is in memory capacity and bandwidth, compute throughput, and modern feature support. The GTX 950A’s 2 GB DDR3 is a hard ceiling for texture-heavy workloads, while the P4000’s 8 GB GDDR5 is ample for professional CAD, scientific visualization, or deep learning inference. The P4000’s 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs provide pixel and texture rates of 94.72 GPixel/s and 165.8 GTexel/s, respectively, versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s for the GTX 950A. The P4000 also has 64 ROPs, four times the GTX 950A’s 16, which directly benefits fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The data shows no scenario where the GTX 950A outperforms the P4000 in raw performance. Instead, the GTX 950A wins only on power efficiency per watt in the absolute sense (75 W vs 105 W TDP) and on physical compatibility with MXM slots. For anyone building or upgrading a desktop workstation, the Quadro P4000 is the only defensible choice based on benchmark evidence. For embedded or portable systems that require a GPU with no external power and modest cooling, the GeForce GTX 950A remains a viable legacy part, but it is not a competitor to the P4000 in any performance metric.