NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database's OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M scores 14,509 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.8% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200's 12,313.

Q: How do these cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 965M wins again, scoring 14,299 versus 12,482 for the Quadro K4200, a 14.6% advantage.

Q: What is the memory difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors, while the Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The GTX 965M averages 14,404 across its benchmark results, placing it in the 56th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K4200 averages 12,398, placing it in the 52nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 come from different architectural generations. The GTX 965M is built on Maxwell 2.0 using the GM204 chip, while the Quadro K4200 uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon differs substantially.

The GM204 die in the GTX 965M is larger at 398 mm² and packs 5,200 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The GK104 die in the Quadro K4200 is smaller at 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, resulting in a density of 12.0 million per mm². Maxwell 2.0 benefits from architectural efficiency improvements over Kepler, which helps the GTX 965M achieve higher performance despite having fewer shading units.

Speaking of shading units, the Quadro K4200 actually has more: 1,344 versus 1,024 on the GTX 965M. The Quadro also has more texture mapping units (112 versus 64). However, the GTX 965M compensates with higher clock speeds. The GTX 965M runs at a base clock of 924 MHz with a boost of 950 MHz, while the Quadro K4200 sits at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, allows the GTX 965M to pull ahead in compute workloads.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Quadro K4200 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, double the capacity and more than double the bandwidth of the GTX 965M's 2 GB on a 128-bit bus at 80.19 GB/s. The Quadro's memory runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the GTX 965M's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

API support favors the GTX 965M. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Physical design differs as well. The GTX 965M is an MXM module with no power connectors, designed for laptops and portable devices. The Quadro K4200 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with a 108 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. The suggested PSU for the Quadro is 300 W.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 965M wins in raw compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 14,509 is 17.8% ahead of the Quadro K4200's 12,313, and its Vulkan score of 14,299 is 14.6% ahead of 12,482. This makes the GTX 965M the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, gaming, or any workload that relies on modern API features and higher clock speeds.

The Quadro K4200's strengths lie elsewhere. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for memory-heavy workloads that require large data sets or high-resolution textures. The 256-bit bus provides substantially more memory throughput than the GTX 965M's 128-bit bus. For professional visualization tasks that need to hold large frame buffers or complex geometry data, the Quadro's memory advantage could be decisive.

The Quadro K4200 also offers a full-height PCIe card form factor with standard display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it easier to integrate into a desktop workstation. The GTX 965M, being an MXM module, is tied to portable device designs and its display outputs are dependent on the host system.

In terms of benchmark percentile placement, the GTX 965M sits at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile. The GTX 965M's average benchmark score of 14,404 places it slightly ahead of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385, 0.1% behind) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373, 0.2% behind). The Quadro K4200's average of 12,398 trails the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, 1.8% ahead) and AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, 2.5% ahead), but beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (11,998, 3.3% behind).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | GM204 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 924 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 950 MHz | 784 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1344 |

| TMUs | 64 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 30.40 GPixel/s | 21.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 60.80 GTexel/s | 87.81 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.946 TFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 108 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-01-08 | 2014-07-21 |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the GTX 965M wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 965M scores 14,509 against the Quadro K4200's 12,313. That is a 17.8% delta in favor of the GTX 965M. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture's efficiency and the GTX 965M's higher clock speeds more than compensate for the Quadro's additional shading units and higher FP32 peak (2.107 TFLOPS versus 1.946 TFLOPS).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains decisive. The GTX 965M scores 14,299, while the Quadro K4200 scores 12,482, a 14.6% difference. Vulkan performance tends to favor newer architectures with better driver optimization and API feature support, and the GTX 965M's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175 likely contributes to this result.

It is worth remembering the Quadro K4200's FP32 theoretical peak is actually higher at 2.107 TFLOPS, but the benchmark results show it trailing in real-world compute. This suggests that architectural efficiency, memory subsystem behavior, or driver overhead plays a significant role in the GTX 965M's favor.

The GTX 965M also performs well relative to its nearest rivals. Its average score of 14,404 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373), and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352). The Quadro K4200, meanwhile, sits 1.8% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625) and 2.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710), but 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (11,998).

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M in benchmark performance. It wins both recorded head-to-head tests, with margins of 17.8% in OpenCL and 14.6% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 14,404 is 16.2% higher than the Quadro K4200's 12,398. The GTX 965M also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution, sitting at the 56th percentile versus the Quadro's 52nd.

For users prioritizing compute performance, especially in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the GTX 965M is the better choice based on the recorded data. Its newer Maxwell 2.0 architecture, higher clocks, and superior API support make it more capable in modern compute scenarios.

However, the Quadro K4200 should not be dismissed. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are significant advantages for memory-intensive tasks. The 256-bit memory bus provides more than double the bandwidth of the GTX 965M's 128-bit bus. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, such as large data set processing or high-resolution rendering, the Quadro K4200's memory subsystem could deliver better real-world results than the benchmark scores suggest.

The form factor also matters. The Quadro K4200 is a standard desktop PCIe card with DVI and DisplayPort outputs, making it straightforward to install in a workstation. The GTX 965M is an MXM module designed for portable devices, so its usability depends entirely on the host system.

In the end, the choice depends on the use case. For compute performance and modern API support, the GTX 965M wins decisively in the benchmarks. For memory capacity and bandwidth, the Quadro K4200 offers clear advantages that the benchmark scores do not fully capture. The database's verdict is straightforward: the GTX 965M is the faster card in these tests, but the Quadro K4200's memory configuration makes it a viable option for specific professional workloads where memory throughput matters more than raw compute.