NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes one direct comparison between these two cards, and the result is heavily one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 scores 29,982 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986 points. That is a 400.9% advantage for the GTX 970, meaning the desktop card delivers roughly five times the compute throughput of the mobile workstation part in this specific workload. This is not a marginal gap; it is a generational and class-level difference that shows up immediately in any OpenCL compute task.

Beyond that single head-to-head test, the rest of the comparison must be built from the separate benchmark suites recorded for each card. The GTX 970 has a much broader benchmark footprint, with scores across 3DMark Steel Nomad, Geekbench Metal, OpenCL and Vulkan, and multiple Passmark tests. The Quadro K4000M only has one recorded benchmark result, the Geekbench OpenCL score mentioned above. This makes direct cross-test comparisons limited, but the available data still tells a clear story about relative positioning.

Looking at the GTX 970's own benchmark results, it scores 13,595 in Geekbench Metal and 20,005 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its Passmark G3D score is 9,638, with a Passmark G2D score of 764. Compute-oriented tests show 4,073 in Passmark GPU Compute and 29,982 in Geekbench OpenCL. The card also records 369 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 143 in Passmark DirectX 9, 71 in Passmark DirectX 11, 46 in Passmark DirectX 10, and 41 in Passmark DirectX 12. These figures establish a baseline of strong legacy and modern API performance for a card of its era.

The Quadro K4000M, by contrast, has no recorded results in Metal, Vulkan, 3DMark, or any of the Passmark suites. Its only data point is the OpenCL score of 5,986, which places it far below the GTX 970 in raw compute. The average benchmark score for the GTX 970 is 7,157, while the Quadro K4000M averages 5,986. That is a difference of roughly 19.6% in average score, though this average is computed over very different numbers of tests.

The percentile ranking reinforces the gap. The GTX 970 sits at the 39th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile. Neither card is near the top of the charts today, but the GTX 970 is clearly ahead of the Quadro in overall standing.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins in every measurable category where both cards have data. In compute workloads, the OpenCL result is the only direct comparison, and the GTX 970 dominates with a 400.9% lead. That single result covers tasks like general-purpose GPU compute, physics simulation, and any application that offloads parallel work to the graphics card. The GTX 970 also shows strong performance in graphics API tests, with its Passmark and Geekbench results covering DirectX 9 through 12, OpenGL, Metal, and Vulkan. This means it is viable for a wide range of legacy and modern applications, from older DirectX 9 titles to Vulkan-based engines.

The Quadro K4000M has no recorded wins in any benchmark. Its only result is the OpenCL score, and it loses that test by a massive margin. However, the Quadro K4000M does have one structural advantage that the benchmark data does not capture: it is a mobile MXM module with a 100 W TDP, designed for workstation laptops. The GTX 970 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 148 W TDP, requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU. For users who need a workstation-class GPU in a portable chassis, the Quadro K4000M is the only option of the two that fits that form factor. The GTX 970 cannot be installed in a laptop, and the Quadro K4000M cannot be installed in a desktop tower. So while the GTX 970 wins on raw performance, the Quadro K4000M wins on physical suitability for mobile workstations.

In terms of API support, the GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 970 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which matters for modern titles and applications that rely on the latest API features. For users who prioritize current software compatibility, the GTX 970 is again the stronger pick.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 970 than the Quadro K4000M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970 scores 29,982 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5,986. That is a 400.9% difference in favor of the GTX 970.

Q: Which card has better overall performance relative to all GPUs?

A: The GTX 970 sits at the 39th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,157. The Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile, with an average score of 5,986.

Q: What is the closest rival to the GTX 970 in the database?

A: The nearest rivals to the GTX 970 are the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, with an average score of 7,170 and a delta of -0.2%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171 and -0.2%, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 and -0.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 at 7,222 and -0.9%. All of these are within 0.9% of the GTX 970's average score.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro K4000M in the database?

A: The nearest rivals to the Quadro K4000M are the AMD FirePro W4100, with an average score of 5,987 and a delta of 0%, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982 and 0.1%, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 and -0.2%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 and -0.2%. All are within 0.2% of the Quadro K4000M's average score.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M have any advantage in power consumption?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4000M has a 100 W TDP, while the GTX 970 has a 148 W TDP. The Quadro K4000M also uses no external power connectors and is an MXM module, whereas the GTX 970 requires 2x 6-pin connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler. The GTX 970 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The Quadro K4000M is also on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The GTX 970 runs at a base clock of 1050 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz. The Quadro K4000M runs at a fixed 601 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 970 uses 1753 MHz memory with 7 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro K4000M uses 700 MHz memory with 2.8 Gbps effective speed.

Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but bandwidth is very different. The GTX 970 achieves 224.4 GB/s, while the Quadro K4000M manages only 89.60 GB/s. The compute units also favor the GTX 970: it has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs, compared to 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the Quadro K4000M. Pixel rate is 65.97 GPixel/s for the GTX 970 versus 12.02 GPixel/s for the Quadro K4000M. Texture rate is 122.5 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.920 TFLOPS versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS.

Physical and power specifications are also different. The GTX 970 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with a 148 W TDP and 2x 6-pin power connectors. The Quadro K4000M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors. The GTX 970 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the Quadro K4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the GTX 970 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro K4000M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Release dates and market positioning differ as well. The GTX 970 was released on 2014-09-18, while the Quadro K4000M was released on 2012-05-31. The GTX 970 has a launch MSRP of 329 USD. The Quadro K4000M has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 970 is built on Maxwell 2.0, the second generation of Nvidia's Maxwell architecture. The Quadro K4000M is built on the older Kepler architecture. This architectural gap explains much of the performance difference. Maxwell 2.0 introduced significant improvements in compute efficiency and power scaling compared to Kepler, which is reflected in the GTX 970's higher clock speeds and much higher FP32 throughput despite a modest TDP increase.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell the story of process maturity. The GTX 970 packs 5,200 million transistors into 398 mm², while the Quadro K4000M fits 3,540 million transistors into 294 mm². Both use the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the GTX 970 achieves a higher transistor density of 13.1M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm² on the Quadro K4000M. The larger die and higher transistor budget allow the GTX 970 to include more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

The memory architecture is similar in capacity and bus width, but the implementations differ. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The GTX 970's memory runs at 1753 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed, yielding 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4000M's memory runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective speed, yielding 89.60 GB/s. This 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 970 is critical for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering.

The feature sets also differ. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which includes the higher feature level 12_1, while the Quadro K4000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is newer on the GTX 970 (1.4 versus 1.2.175). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware features.

The production status is end-of-life for both. The GTX 970 succeeded the GeForce 700 series and was succeeded by the GeForce 10 series. The Quadro K4000M succeeded Quadro Fermi-M and was succeeded by Quadro Maxwell-M. The release gap of roughly two years between the two cards is significant, as the GTX 970 benefits from two years of additional architectural refinement.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 970 outperforms the Quadro K4000M by every measurable metric. In the only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970 leads by 400.9%. It has higher clock speeds, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher memory bandwidth, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and higher FP32 compute. Its average benchmark score of 7,157 versus 5,986 puts it ahead in overall database standing, and its 39th percentile rank versus the Quadro's 34th percentile confirms the gap.

The GTX 970 is the card to choose for anyone building a desktop system that needs strong compute and graphics performance across a wide range of APIs. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 makes it more future-proof for modern software. Its display outputs include HDMI 2.0 and three DisplayPort 1.2 connections, which is useful for multi-monitor setups. The 329 USD launch MSRP places it as a mid-range desktop card at release.

The Quadro K4000M is the card to choose for a specific use case: a mobile workstation. As an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no external power connectors, it fits into laptop chassis that accept MXM-B (3.0) modules. No desktop card can fill that role. If the requirement is a workstation-class GPU in a portable system, the Quadro K4000M is the only one of these two that physically works. Users who need that form factor should accept its lower performance, since the GTX 970 simply cannot be installed in such a system.

For everyone else, the GTX 970 is the clear winner. Its compute performance, memory bandwidth, and API support make it a far more capable card for gaming, content creation, and general GPU compute. The Quadro K4000M's only advantages are its lower power draw and mobile form factor, neither of which helps a desktop user. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the Quadro K4000M beats the GTX 970 on performance, so the decision comes down to form factor and power requirements rather than raw capability.