NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The data presents a stark generational and market-segmentation divide. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000, a professional Pascal-generation part, decisively outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, a consumer Maxwell 2.0 chip, in every single head-to-head benchmark available. The question is not whether the P4000 is faster, but rather what the magnitude of that difference means for different types of workloads and whether the GTX 960 retains any niche where its specific design makes it a more logical choice.

Where Each One Wins

Based solely on the benchmark results, the Quadro P4000 wins everywhere. It claims victory in all three head-to-head tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12), Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. This is a clean sweep, with the P4000 taking 3 wins and the GTX 960 taking 0. The P4000’s dominance is not marginal; it is a landslide across different API environments and workload types.

The most significant win for the P4000 is in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it scores 1115 versus the GTX 960’s 162. This represents a 588.3% delta, meaning the P4000 delivers nearly seven times the performance in this modern DirectX 12 rasterization workload. This is a clear signal for any application leveraging DX12’s low-level hardware access and multi-threaded rendering; the P4000’s Pascal architecture is in a different league. The GTX 960, while supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), is simply outclassed in this demanding scenario.

In compute-oriented workloads, the P4000 also dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36212 compared to the GTX 960’s 18925, a 91.3% advantage. This nearly doubles the compute throughput, which is crucial for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and data processing. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P4000 scores 41786 against the GTX 960’s 9231, a 352.7% difference. The P4000’s massive Vulkan lead suggests its driver stack and hardware are far better optimized for this cross-platform, low-overhead API, which is increasingly important in both professional visualization and modern gaming engines.

The GTX 960 has no benchmark win to claim. Its only unique benchmark result is in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 8773, but the P4000 has no corresponding Metal score in the data pack, so no comparison can be made. While the GTX 960 is a competent card in its own right, this head-to-head data shows it cannot compete with the P4000 on raw performance metrics. Its potential advantage lies in its lower power consumption and smaller physical footprint, making it a fit for systems where space and power draw are more critical than absolute performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro P4000 is the superior performer. Anyone whose priority is maximum frame rates, faster compute, or future-proofing against demanding DX12 and Vulkan titles should choose the P4000. The 588.3% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad is the single most compelling piece of evidence; it shows that the P4000 is not just faster, but architecturally more capable of handling modern rendering techniques. The 352.7% lead in Vulkan further reinforces this, pointing to a GPU that will handle the latest APIs with far greater ease.

The GTX 960, however, is not without a rationale for selection. For a user with a legacy system or a strict requirement for minimal power draw, the GTX 960’s 120 W TDP versus the P4000’s 105 W is a point in its favor, but this is a minor advantage. The GTX 960 is a dual-slot card, while the P4000 is single-slot, but the GTX 960 has a lower TDP and is end-of-life, just like the P4000. The true reason to pick the GTX 960 would be its launch MSRP of 199 USD, which is significantly lower than the P4000’s launch MSRP of 815 USD. If the budget was the absolute constraint at the time of purchase, the GTX 960 was the only option. However, from a pure performance-per-dollar perspective, the data suggests the P4000 commands a massive premium for a reason: it delivers performance that is categorically in a higher tier, as evidenced by its average benchmark score of 9665 versus the GTX 960’s 9273.

Ultimately, the verdict is that the P4000 is the choice for performance, and the GTX 960 is the choice for those who must prioritize the lowest initial cost and lowest power consumption over all else. There is no middle ground in the benchmark data; it is a complete victory for the professional card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are the core of the analysis, and they reveal a consistent and crushing pattern of P4000 superiority. The largest delta is in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the P4000’s score of 1115 dwarfs the GTX 960’s 162. This 588.3% difference is so vast that it suggests the GTX 960 is not merely slower, but is bottlenecked at a fundamental architectural level. The P4000’s 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, combined with a 256-bit memory bus and 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth, provide the raw resources needed to feed a modern GPU. The GTX 960, with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and a 128-bit bus providing 112.2 GB/s, is simply starved of resources in comparison.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar, albeit less extreme, story. The P4000 scores 41786, a 352.7% improvement over the GTX 960’s 9231. This is particularly telling because Vulkan is designed to reduce CPU overhead and provide more direct control to developers. The P4000’s massive lead here indicates that its compute units are far more efficient at executing the parallel workloads that Vulkan and DX12 favor. The GTX 960’s older Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while capable, cannot extract the same level of performance from these modern APIs.

The smallest delta between the two comes in Geekbench OpenCL, but it is still a decisive win for the P4000. With a score of 36212 versus 18925, the P4000 is 91.3% faster. This is a near-doubling of compute performance, making the P4000 the clear choice for any OpenCL-accelerated application. These results show that the P4000’s advantages are consistent across different types of workloads, from gaming rasterization (DX12) to general-purpose compute (OpenCL) and cross-platform graphics (Vulkan). The GTX 960 is not just beaten; it is outclassed in every measurable category.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P4000 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 1115, while the GTX 960 scores 162, which is a 588.3% lead for the P4000.

Q: Does the GTX 960 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the data provided, the Quadro P4000 wins all three head-to-head tests (3DMark, OpenCL, Vulkan), giving it 3 wins and the GTX 960 0 wins.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9665, compared to the GTX 960’s 9273, making the P4000 the higher-scoring card overall.

Q: What is the difference in the Geekbench Vulkan scores?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 41786, which is 352.7% higher than the GTX 960’s score of 9231.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 have a production status of "End-of-life."

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

A: The Quadro P4000 is built on a 16 nm process, while the GTX 960 is built on a 28 nm process, both by TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct generations of NVIDIA architecture. The Quadro P4000 is based on the Pascal architecture, using the GP104 chip, while the GTX 960 is based on the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM206 chip. This architectural gap is the root cause of the performance disparity. The P4000 is fabricated on a 16 nm process, which is significantly more advanced than the 28 nm process used for the GTX 960. This allows the P4000 to pack 7,200 million transistors onto a 314 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 22.9M / mm². The GTX 960, by contrast, has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, with a density of 12.9M / mm². The P4000’s higher density and newer process node enable higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, contributing to its superior performance.

The memory architecture also differs significantly. The P4000 features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.2 GB/s. This is a critical difference for high-resolution textures and large datasets; the P4000 has more than double the memory capacity and bandwidth. The P4000’s memory clock is also higher, running at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 960’s 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The P4000 also has a greater number of execution units: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to the GTX 960’s 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to higher pixel and texture rates (94.72 GPixel/s and 165.8 GTexel/s for the P4000 vs 37.70 GPixel/s and 75.39 GTexel/s for the GTX 960) and more than double the FP32 compute power (5.304 TFLOPS vs 2.413 TFLOPS).

Specification Differences

The most impactful specification differences are in compute, memory, and process technology. The Quadro P4000’s FP32 performance is 5.304 TFLOPS, which is more than double the GTX 960’s 2.413 TFLOPS. This raw compute advantage is the engine behind the P4000’s wins in OpenCL and Vulkan. The memory subsystem is also a major differentiator, with the P4000 offering 8 GB of VRAM and 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth versus the GTX 960’s 2 GB and 112.2 GB/s. The P4000 also has a wider 256-bit bus compared to the GTX 960’s 128-bit bus.

The cards differ in their physical and power profiles. The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W, which is lower than the GTX 960’s 120 W, despite being significantly more powerful. The P4000 is a single-slot card, while the GTX 960 is a dual-slot card. Both have the same length of 241 mm and require a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The display outputs also differ: the P4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 960 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. Finally, the core clocks are different, with the P4000 running at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost, while the GTX 960 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost. The P4000 was released later (2017-02-05) than the GTX 960 (2015-01-21), and its launch MSRP was 815 USD versus the GTX 960’s 199 USD.