NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the GTX 970M delivers a score of 18,946, which is dramatically higher than the Quadro 4000's 4,979. The delta is a decisive 73.7% in favor of the GTX 970M, indicating a near-fourfold advantage in raw compute throughput for this workload. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational gap that reflects the fundamental architectural shift between the two products.

The Quadro 4000's average benchmark score across all tests is 4,979, placing it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (scoring 4,970, a 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (scoring 4,998, a -0.4% delta). This clustering shows that the Quadro 4000 is effectively positioned alongside integrated and entry-level parts from much later eras, despite its professional workstation heritage. The data suggests that its compute capabilities have been thoroughly surpassed by modern mainstream hardware.

The GTX 970M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 4,628, which is lower than its single OpenCL result because it also includes several other test categories. Its percentile ranking is 27th, slightly below the Quadro 4000, but this is misleading. The GTX 970M's scores span multiple DirectX and compute workloads, including a Passmark G3D score of 5,704 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,289. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, scores 4,621 with a 0.2% delta, confirming that the GTX 970M sits in a competitive mobile workstation segment. The GTX 970M also shows strong Vulkan performance with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 18,292, a test the Quadro 4000 cannot run due to its lack of Vulkan support.

When comparing the two directly, the GTX 970M wins the only shared benchmark by a 73.7% margin, and it also offers a much wider suite of measurable performance data. The Quadro 4000 has exactly one benchmark score, limiting its comparability. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 472 for the GTX 970M, while low in absolute terms, still demonstrates capabilities in modern API workloads that the Fermi-based Quadro simply does not possess. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 99 for the GTX 970M, though modest, further illustrates that it can handle legacy APIs, whereas the Quadro 4000's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is limited to feature level 11_0.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast. The Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a die size of 529 mm², yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The GTX 970M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, also made by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a smaller 398 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². This density improvement is a direct result of the process node shrink and architectural efficiency gains.

The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. Its pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s and texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s, with FP32 compute at 486.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 970M, in comparison, features 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 49.82 GPixel/s, texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance reaches 2.657 TFLOPS. These are not incremental improvements; the GTX 970M has roughly 5.5 times the shading units and over 5 times the FP32 throughput.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. Memory clock is 702 MHz, with 2.8 Gbps effective. The GTX 970M offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 1253 MHz, with 5 Gbps effective. The GTX 970M's higher bandwidth, despite a narrower bus, comes from faster memory clock speeds. The Quadro 4000 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the GTX 970M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface, reflecting its mobile design.

API support is another clear differentiator. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means the GTX 970M can run modern Vulkan applications, while the Quadro 4000 is locked out of that API entirely. The GTX 970M also has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 1038 MHz, while the Quadro 4000 has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 970M is decisively ahead. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 18,946 versus the Quadro 4000's 4,979, a 73.7% advantage. Its FP32 throughput of 2.657 TFLOPS also dwarfs the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the difference in memory size and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth on a 192-bit bus. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus. Despite the Quadro's wider bus, the GTX 970M's faster memory clock (1253 MHz vs 702 MHz) gives it higher overall bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern APIs?

A: The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. This makes the GTX 970M more versatile for contemporary workloads.

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes compare?

A: The GTX 970M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GTX 970M achieves a higher transistor density of 13.1M/mm² versus 5.9M/mm² for the Quadro 4000.

Q: What is the significance of the GTX 970M's multiple benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 970M has a broad benchmark portfolio, including Passmark G3D (5,704), Passmark GPU Compute (2,289), and Geekbench Vulkan (18,292). The Quadro 4000 has only one score (Geekbench OpenCL), limiting its comparability across different workloads.

Q: Which GPU has a better percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro 4000 ranks in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 970M ranks in the 27th percentile. However, this ranking is based on average scores across different test sets, and the GTX 970M's single head-to-head win is by a massive margin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GF100 | GM204 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 924 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 120.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 32 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.600 GPixel/s | 49.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.20 GTexel/s | 83.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 486.4 GFLOPS | 2.657 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 142 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not listed |

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

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

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

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2010-11-01 | 2014-10-06 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | GeForce 10 Mobile |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior GPU for any compute-intensive task. Its 73.7% win in the only shared benchmark, combined with its 5.5 times more shading units, 5.5 times higher FP32 throughput, and support for Vulkan 1.4, makes it the clear choice for modern workloads. The GTX 970M also offers three times the memory capacity (6 GB vs 2 GB) and higher memory bandwidth (120.3 GB/s vs 89.86 GB/s).

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, despite its professional workstation branding, is a relic of the Fermi era. Its 29th percentile ranking and single benchmark score indicate that it is outclassed by even entry-level modern parts. The GTX 970M, with its 27th percentile ranking, also faces competitive pressure from newer mobile GPUs like the Quadro M3000M, which scores within 0.2% of it. However, the GTX 970M's broader API support and higher raw performance metrics give it a definitive edge over the Quadro 4000.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload compatibility. If the task requires Vulkan, DirectX 12 (12_1), or substantial compute throughput, the GTX 970M is the only viable option. If legacy OpenGL or specific professional validation suites are the priority, the Quadro 4000 might still function, but its hardware limitations will bottleneck any demanding application. The GTX 970M is the more future-proof and capable product by every measurable metric in this data set.