NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, yet their average benchmark scores are remarkably close. The P4000 is a professional workstation card built on the Pascal architecture, while the GTX 960M is a Maxwell-based mobile chip designed for laptops. Despite the P4000’s overwhelming lead in compute-heavy tests, the average scores of 9665 and 9645 respectively place them within 0.2% of each other, a statistical tie that masks very different performance profiles. This analysis breaks down where each card excels and for whom each makes sense.

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9665, while the GTX 960M scores 9645. This puts the P4000 just 0.2% ahead, making them near-identical in overall average performance despite their architectural differences.

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro P4000 dominates with a score of 36212 compared to the GTX 960M’s 11045. This represents a 227.9% advantage for the P4000, a massive margin that highlights its compute capabilities.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The P4000 again wins decisively, scoring 41786 versus the GTX 960M’s 8245. The delta is 406.8%, meaning the P4000 is over five times faster in this API.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The P4000 was released on February 5, 2017, while the GTX 960M came earlier on March 12, 2015.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their percentiles compare among all GPUs?

A: The P4000 sits at the 47th percentile, while the GTX 960M is at the 46th percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, but the P4000 edges slightly higher.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental gap between these two cards lies in their underlying architectures. The Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip built on TSMC’s 16 nm process node, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, with just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6M per mm². The P4000’s newer process node allows for significantly more compute resources: 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, versus the GTX 960M’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This is a 2.8x difference in shading units and a 4x difference in ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ notably. The P4000 runs at a base of 1202 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz, while the GTX 960M is slower at 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost. Memory clocks show a similar story: the P4000’s memory runs at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960M’s memory is at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the GTX 960M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0), a meaningful difference for modern API features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the compute capabilities diverge sharply.

The P4000 offers FP32 performance of 5.304 TFLOPS, while the GTX 960M delivers just 1.505 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s versus 18.82 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s. The P4000 even has FP16 capability at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GTX 960M has no listed FP16 performance. These architectural differences explain why the P4000 is a workstation card and the GTX 960M is a laptop part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks are available for direct comparison between these cards, and both are decisive wins for the Quadro P4000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36212 against the GTX 960M’s 11045. That is a delta of 227.9%, meaning the P4000 is more than three times faster. This test stresses general-purpose compute, and the P4000’s 1792 shading units and higher clocks simply overwhelm the GTX 960M’s 640 shading units. The GTX 960M’s 28 nm process and lower transistor count put it at a severe disadvantage in raw parallel throughput.

Geekbench Vulkan shows an even larger gap. The P4000 scores 41786, while the GTX 960M manages only 8245, a delta of 406.8%. This means the P4000 is over five times faster in Vulkan workloads. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that benefits from efficient hardware utilization, and the P4000’s newer architecture with more ROPs and TMUs handles draw calls and geometry far better. The GTX 960M’s 16 ROPs are a bottleneck, limiting its ability to fill pixels and process fragments quickly.

The wins tally is 2 for the P4000 and 0 for the GTX 960M. There are no benchmark results where the GTX 960M comes out ahead. However, note that the GTX 960M only has benchmark data for these two tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), while the P4000 has additional scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad, Passmark tests, and compute workloads. That missing data means the GTX 960M’s average score of 9645 is based on a narrower set of tests, which could skew its standing relative to the P4000’s broader benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts beyond raw performance. The P4000 uses a 16 nm process, while the GTX 960M uses 28 nm, leading to the transistor count difference of 7,200 million versus 1,870 million. Die size is 314 mm² versus 148 mm². Memory capacity is 8 GB versus 4 GB, and bandwidth is 243.3 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. Bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W and requires a 6-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the GTX 960M has a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, as it is an MXM module. The P4000 is single-slot with dimensions of 241 mm length and 111 mm height, while the GTX 960M has no listed dimensions due to its mobile form factor.

The P4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the GTX 960M’s display outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop implementation. Bus interface differs too: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the P4000 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 960M. The P4000 has a launch MSRP of 815 USD, while the GTX 960M has no launch MSRP listed. Release dates are 2017-02-05 for the P4000 and 2015-03-12 for the GTX 960M. Their predecessors and successors also differ: the P4000 follows Quadro Maxwell and leads to Quadro Volta, while the GTX 960M follows GeForce 800M and leads to GeForce 10 Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins every benchmark where both cards have data, so the use-case split is clear. The P4000 is for workloads that demand high compute throughput: OpenCL and Vulkan tasks that benefit from massive parallel processing. Its 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 power, 243.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 8 GB of VRAM make it suitable for professional 3D rendering, scientific computation, and GPU-accelerated design work. The 4x DisplayPort outputs also support multi-monitor professional setups. The GTX 960M, with its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor, is designed for laptops where power efficiency and compact size are priorities. It can handle light gaming and basic graphics tasks, but its 1.505 TFLOPS and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth are far below the P4000’s capabilities.

The GTX 960M’s only advantage is in its physical footprint and power draw: 75 W versus 105 W means less heat and battery drain in a mobile chassis. However, the data shows no benchmark where the GTX 960M outperforms the P4000. The P4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9653 average score (0.1% difference), while the GTX 960M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9637 (0.1% difference). Both cards are clustered with older workstation parts, but the P4000’s compute lead in specific tests is substantial.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro P4000 is the superior performer in every measurable benchmark. It delivers 227.9% higher OpenCL scores and 406.8% higher Vulkan scores than the GTX 960M. For anyone needing professional-grade compute, the P4000’s 8 GB VRAM, 1792 shading units, and 5.304 TFLOPS make it the obvious choice, provided the 105 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU are acceptable. Its 47th percentile ranking and average score of 9665 place it slightly above the GTX 960M’s 46th percentile and 9645 average, but the gap in real-world compute tasks is enormous.

The GTX 960M is only viable in scenarios where its MXM form factor and 75 W power draw are required, such as upgrading a laptop that uses MXM modules. Its 4 GB memory and 128-bit bus limit it to lighter workloads, and its 1.505 TFLOPS is less than a third of the P4000’s output. The 0.2% difference in average benchmark scores is misleading; it reflects the GTX 960M’s limited benchmark data rather than true performance parity. Pick the P4000 for any workstation task, and pick the GTX 960M only if you are constrained to a laptop chassis with no other options. The P4000’s 815 USD launch MSRP is a premium, but the performance data justifies it for professional users.