NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains one directly comparable workload for these two mobile graphics processors: the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. In that measurement, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M delivers a score of 18,946, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M manages 5,211. The delta between them is stark: the GTX 970M leads by 72.5 percent, a margin that dwarfs the usual generational gaps seen in the database.

Looking at the raw numbers, the GTX 970M’s OpenCL result is more than three and a half times that of the Quadro 4000M. This is not a narrow victory; it is a decisive shift in compute throughput. The Quadro 4000M’s score places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile. That is curious at first glance: the lower percentile for the GTX 970M despite a far higher absolute score is explained by the distribution of results across the database, where newer mid-range parts cluster tightly.

When placed against its nearest rivals, the Quadro 4000M holds its own in its immediate neighborhood. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by just 0.5 percent, with that rival scoring 5,236 against 5,211. It edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M260X by 1 percent (5,161) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M by 1.1 percent (5,154). The NVIDIA GeForce 940M sits slightly ahead at 5,284, a 1.4 percent gap. These are small margins, indicating that the Quadro 4000M is right at the performance level of its contemporary mobile peers in OpenCL compute.

The GTX 970M’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 4,628, which puts it within 0.2 percent of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4,621) and 0.6 percent of the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4,657). It also sits 0.6 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4,657) and 1.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577). These deltas are all sub-2 percent, meaning the GTX 970M is tightly grouped with a cluster of mobile and low-power parts once the average across multiple workloads is considered.

The head-to-head OpenCL result, however, is unambiguous. The 72.5 percent delta is the largest single-metric gap in this comparison, and it reflects a fundamental difference in compute architecture and execution resources. The GTX 970M wins the only direct comparison in the database, and it does so by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. The GTX 970M leads by 72.5 percent.

Q: How does the Quadro 4000M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000M is within 1.4 percent of all four nearest rivals. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by 0.5 percent, matches within 1 percent of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, and sits 1.4 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940M.

Q: What is the GTX 970M’s position relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The GTX 970M’s average benchmark score of 4,628 places it within 1.1 percent of all four nearest rivals. It is 0.2 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, 0.6 percent behind the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, and 1.1 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile rank in the database?

A: The Quadro 4000M ranks in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 970M ranks in the 27th percentile. Despite the GTX 970M’s much higher OpenCL score, its average across all workloads places it slightly lower in the distribution.

Q: How many direct benchmark comparisons exist between these two GPUs?

A: The database lists one head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 970M wins that single comparison.

Q: Which GPU has the larger memory bus width?

A: The Quadro 4000M uses a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 970M uses a 192-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 970M achieves higher bandwidth because of faster memory clocks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different architectural eras from NVIDIA. The Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 970M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, also produced by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The node shrink from 40 nm to 28 nm is a major factor in the performance gap, allowing the GTX 970M to pack far more transistors into a similar die area.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. The Quadro 4000M contains 1,950 million transistors on a die size of 332 mm², yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The GTX 970M contains 5,200 million transistors on a slightly larger die of 398 mm², resulting in a density of 13.1 million per mm². That is more than double the density, a direct consequence of the smaller process node and improved design rules. The GTX 970M’s die is only about 20 percent larger in area but holds well over twice the transistor count.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The shading unit count is nearly four times higher on the GTX 970M, which explains the massive OpenCL score difference. The GTX 970M’s pixel rate is 49.82 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000M, a 7.5x advantage in rasterization throughput. Texture rate also favors the newer part: 83.04 GTexel/s against 26.60 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute performance is where the gap becomes most apparent. The Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS, while the GTX 970M reaches 2.657 TFLOPS. That is over four times the single-precision floating-point throughput. Neither GPU lists FP16 capabilities in the database, so half-precision compute is not a distinguishing factor here.

API support also differs. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan entry. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and the presence of Vulkan support give the GTX 970M access to modern graphics APIs that the older Fermi part cannot utilize.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. Memory configuration is a notable divergence. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s. Even with a narrower bus, the GTX 970M achieves 50 percent more bandwidth due to faster memory clocks: 5 Gbps effective versus 2.5 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds are only partially recorded for the Quadro 4000M, which has no base or boost clock listed. Its memory clock is 625 MHz, translating to 2.5 Gbps effective. The GTX 970M has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost clock of 1038 MHz, with a memory clock of 1253 MHz and 5 Gbps effective. The boost clock on the GTX 970M provides dynamic frequency headroom that the Quadro 4000M cannot match.

Power consumption is listed only for the Quadro 4000M at 100 W. The GTX 970M has no TDP value in the database, so a direct power comparison is not possible. Both use MXM Module slot width with no external power connectors, and both use the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both, meaning the manufacturer controls the actual ports.

Release dates are far apart. The Quadro 4000M was released on February 21, 2011, while the GTX 970M arrived on October 6, 2014. That is roughly three and a half years between launches, which explains the architectural and specification gaps. The Quadro 4000M’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile line, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The GTX 970M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M, and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. Both are now end-of-life products.

Neither GPU has a launch MSRP listed in the database, so no pricing information is available for either part.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M wins the only direct benchmark comparison by a 72.5 percent margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, its score of 18,946 versus 5,211 is not a close contest. Any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, which includes many general-purpose GPU tasks, will favor the GTX 970M overwhelmingly.

The Quadro 4000M’s strengths are narrow. Its 256-bit memory bus is wider than the GTX 970M’s 192-bit bus, but that advantage is negated by the GTX 970M’s much faster memory clock and higher bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M also sits in a slightly higher percentile rank (30th versus 27th), but that ranking is an artifact of the database distribution, not an indicator of superior performance. Its nearest rival deltas are all within 1.4 percent, meaning it is competitive with its immediate peers, but those peers are all older or lower-end parts.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. The GTX 970M is the choice for compute-heavy tasks, modern API support, and higher memory capacity. Its 6 GB frame buffer and Vulkan 1.4 support make it more future-proof for graphics applications. The Quadro 4000M, with its Fermi architecture and lack of Vulkan, is limited to older software and lighter workloads. Its 100 W TDP is documented, while the GTX 970M’s power draw is unlisted, so power-conscious buyers may want to check the GTX 970M’s specifications elsewhere.

The database records a single head-to-head test, and the GTX 970M wins it. That is the verdict: the newer Maxwell part dominates the older Fermi part in compute performance, and no other benchmark in the database contradicts that result. The Quadro 4000M remains a functional GPU for its era, but against the GTX 970M, it is outclassed on every measurable compute metric.