NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro P400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M occupy the same 27th percentile in the overall GPU benchmark distribution, with average scores of 4684 and 4628 respectively. The P400 edges ahead by 1.2% in aggregate, yet the GTX 970M dominates in every shared head-to-head test, often by margins exceeding 70%. This is a tale of two entirely different design philosophies: a low-power workstation card optimized for display output and professional application stability versus a mobile gaming processor with substantially more computational muscle. The data reveals that while their average scores land within 1.2% of each other, the underlying benchmark results tell a story of divergent strengths that matter more than the aggregate suggests.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins decisively in all compute-oriented and graphics-API workloads where both cards have data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 versus the P400's 4,249, a 77.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains enormous: 18,292 versus 5,119, a 72% lead. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental performance class separation in raw parallel compute and modern API rendering.

The Quadro P400, however, wins where benchmark scores are not the primary metric. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot profile, and 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a specialized tool for multi-display professional environments. The card draws no auxiliary power connectors and requires only a 200 W system PSU, enabling deployment in compact workstations where the GTX 970M's MXM Module form factor would not fit. The P400 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16 natively, while the GTX 970M uses the MXM-B (3.0) interface, which ties it to specific laptop or modular chassis designs.

In terms of benchmark breadth, the GTX 970M has data across Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12, Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The P400 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results. This means the GTX 970M's performance profile is far better characterized, while the P400's strengths in professional OpenGL workloads or driver-optimized CAD applications remain unquantified in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The P400 uses the GP107 chip on Samsung's 14 nm process, packing 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die. The GTX 970M uses the GM204 chip on TSMC's 28 nm node, with 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 25.0M per mm² for the P400 versus 13.1M per mm² for the GTX 970M. The newer 14 nm process allows the P400 to achieve higher clock speeds at dramatically lower power, but the GTX 970M compensates with far more hardware.

Compute resources strongly favor the GTX 970M. It has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, against the P400's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 5x difference in shading units explains the massive OpenCL and Vulkan deltas. The GTX 970M's pixel rate is 49.82 GPixel/s versus 20.03 GPixel/s for the P400, and its texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.657 TFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS — a 4.1x advantage for the GTX 970M.

Memory configurations diverge completely. The P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s — nearly 4x more bandwidth and 3x more capacity. Clock speeds favor the P400: 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost versus 924 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost for the GTX 970M. Memory clocks also differ, with the P400 at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 970M.

The architectures themselves are from different generations. The P400 uses Pascal, while the GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The P400 does have one unique feature: FP16 performance rated at 10.02 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, whereas the GTX 970M's FP16 capability is not specified in the data.

The Verdict

The data shows no scenario where the Quadro P400 outperforms the GTX 970M in raw benchmark scores. The GTX 970M wins both head-to-head tests by margins of 72% or greater. If the selection criterion is compute performance or gaming capability, the GTX 970M is the clear choice from this dataset.

However, the P400's value proposition is entirely different. It offers a 30 W TDP, single-slot cooling, no auxiliary power requirement, and three mini-DisplayPort outputs. The GTX 970M has no listed TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor, and has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." For a workstation requiring multiple displays from a low-profile card, the P400 is the only viable option between the two. The GTX 970M cannot be physically installed in a standard desktop PCIe slot without an adapter, and its display output flexibility is constrained by the host laptop.

The 1.2% average score difference favoring the P400 is misleading because it averages across only two benchmarks for the P400 versus ten for the GTX 970M. The GTX 970M's Passmark scores show a GPU compute result of 2,289 and a G3D score of 5,704, figures that have no P400 equivalent. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 472 is also exclusive to the GTX 970M.

Choose the P400 if the requirement is a low-power, multi-display professional card for a compact workstation. Choose the GTX 970M if the requirement is maximum compute throughput in a mobile or MXM-based system. There is no overlap where the P400 competes on performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 970M wins both shared tests. It scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4,249 for the P400, and 18,292 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 5,119. The margins are 77.6% and 72% respectively.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance class?

A: Their average benchmark scores are close — 4,684 for the P400 and 4,628 for the GTX 970M, a 1.2% difference — but this masks the fact that the GTX 970M has eight additional benchmark results that the P400 lacks, including Passmark G3D at 5,704 and GPU Compute at 2,289.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 970M also has higher memory clock at 1253 MHz versus 1002 MHz.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The P400 has a listed TDP of 30 W and requires no auxiliary power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTX 970M has no TDP listed in the data and uses an MXM Module form factor.

Q: Do they support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P400 additionally has FP16 capability at 10.02 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the GTX 970M's FP16 performance is not specified.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units versus 256 for the P400, a 5x difference. It also has 80 TMUs versus 16, and 48 ROPs versus 16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the most lopsided comparison. The GTX 970M scores 18,946 against the P400's 4,249, a 77.6% deficit for the P400. This aligns with the hardware disparity: 1,280 shading units at 2.657 TFLOPS FP32 easily outpaces 256 shading units at 641.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 970M's memory bandwidth of 120.3 GB/s also helps in OpenCL workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, compared to 32.06 GB/s for the P400.

Geekbench Vulkan narrows the gap slightly but remains lopsided. The GTX 970M posts 18,292 versus 5,119 for the P400, a 72% advantage. Vulkan's lower overhead may help the P400's higher clock speeds — 1252 MHz boost versus 1038 MHz — but the GTX 970M's massive resource advantage in TMUs and ROPs dominates. The GTX 970M's texture rate of 83.04 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 49.82 GPixel/s are decisive in draw-call-heavy workloads.

Beyond the shared tests, the GTX 970M's exclusive Passmark results provide additional context. Its G3D score of 5,704 indicates strong DirectX 11 performance, while the G2D score of 381 reflects its 2D capabilities. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 99 and DirectX 10 score of 28 show diminishing returns in older APIs, but DirectX 11 at 42 and DirectX 12 at 24 remain functional. The GPU Compute score of 2,289 suggests the GTX 970M handles compute workloads well, corroborating its OpenCL dominance.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 472 for the GTX 970M offers a modern API benchmark that the P400 cannot match. This is significant because both cards support DirectX 12, but the GTX 970M's superior hardware resources translate directly to higher frame rates in DX12 titles.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern: the GTX 970M outperforms the P400 by enormous margins in every shared benchmark, and the P400's only advantages are in power consumption, physical footprint, and display output flexibility — none of which appear in benchmark scores.