NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data reveals a clear pattern: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 dominates the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 in most tests, but the GTX 980 holds a few specific advantages. Out of ten head-to-head comparisons, the Quadro P4000 wins eight, while the GeForce GTX 980 takes two.

The most dramatic difference appears in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The Quadro P4000 scores 1115, while the GTX 980 manages only 474. That is a 135.2% advantage for the Quadro, the largest delta in the entire comparison. This suggests the Quadro handles modern DX12 workloads with substantially more efficiency, likely a reflection of its newer architecture.

Vulkan performance tells a similar story. The Quadro P4000 records 41786 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 22543 for the GTX 980, a lead of 85.4%. This is another massive gap, indicating that the Quadro's Pascal architecture scales far better with low-level graphics APIs.

DirectX 10 also favors the Quadro. Its Passmark score of 66 beats the GTX 980's 53, a 24.5% difference. DirectX 9 shows a smaller but still meaningful gap: 181 versus 164, or 10.4% ahead.

The margin narrows considerably in other tests. In Passmark DirectX 11, the Quadro scores 86 against 83, just 3.6% higher. Passmark G3D shows 11466 for the Quadro versus 11095 for the GTX 980, only 3.3% apart. OpenCL performance in Geekbench is close too: 36212 versus 34676, a 4.4% lead for the Quadro. Passmark GPU Compute similarly favors the Quadro by 3.4%, with scores of 4913 and 4753.

The GTX 980's two wins are worth examining closely. In Passmark DirectX 12, the GTX 980 scores 46 while the Quadro scores 40, a 13% advantage for the older card. This is an interesting reversal given the Quadro's massive win in the 3DMark DX12 test. The Passmark G2D test also goes to the GTX 980, albeit by a razor-thin margin: 792 versus 786, a 0.8% difference.

What does this mean overall? The Quadro P4000 holds a substantial average benchmark score of 9665, which places it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 980 averages 8167, ranking in the 43rd percentile. Both cards sit near the middle of the database, but the Quadro is consistently ahead in compute-oriented and modern API workloads.

The nearest rivals for each card provide context. The Quadro P4000's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9653 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 9645 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9637 (0.3% behind). The GTX 980's nearest rivals include the GTX 950M at 8135 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon R9 M360 at 8129 (0.5% behind), and the GeForce 945M at 8099 (0.8% behind). Interestingly, both cards are clustered tightly with their respective rivals, meaning small benchmark differences separate entire tiers of hardware.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the stronger performer in this pairing. Its eight wins out of ten head-to-head tests, combined with a higher average benchmark score (9665 versus 8167), make it the more capable card for most workloads.

The Quadro P4000's advantages are most pronounced in modern API tests. The 135.2% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and the 85.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan are not marginal differences; they represent generational improvements in how the card handles contemporary graphics pipelines. Anyone running DX12 or Vulkan applications should expect the Quadro to deliver significantly better results.

The GTX 980 does have a niche. Its 13% advantage in Passmark DirectX 12 suggests that specific DX12 workloads may still favor it, and its G2D score of 792 edges out the Quadro's 786. But these are isolated wins, not a trend. The GTX 980's average score of 8167 places it below the Quadro by roughly 18%, a substantial gap.

For users prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, and overall consistency, the Quadro P4000 is the clear choice based on recorded measurements. The GTX 980 remains relevant only for specific legacy workloads or 2D tasks where its slightly higher G2D score matters.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip built on the Pascal architecture, while the GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0. This generational gap explains much of the performance difference.

The manufacturing process highlights the divide. The Quadro P4000 is fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 980 uses a larger 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows the Quadro to pack 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die. The GTX 980, by contrast, contains 5,200 million transistors spread across a larger 398 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 22.9M per mm² for the Quadro versus 13.1M per mm² for the GTX 980. The Quadro packs nearly twice the transistor density into a smaller physical area.

Memory configurations also differ. The Quadro P4000 ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 980 has 4 GB. Both use a 256 bit bus, but the Quadro's memory runs at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) and delivers 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980's memory runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for 224.4 GB/s. The Quadro offers both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Compute resources show an interesting split. The GTX 980 has more shading units (2048 versus 1792) and more texture mapping units (128 versus 112). Both cards have 64 ROPs. Yet the Quadro still achieves higher throughput in several metrics. Its pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s versus 77.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 980. Its texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 155.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance reaches 5.304 TFLOPS on the Quadro versus 4.981 TFLOPS on the GTX 980. The Quadro's architectural efficiency overcomes its lower raw resource counts.

Clock speeds tell part of the story. The Quadro P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. The GTX 980 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1216 MHz boost. The Quadro's higher clocks, combined with its denser transistor layout, contribute to its performance edge.

Specification Differences

Several specifications differ between the two cards. The Quadro P4000 uses the Pascal architecture with a GP104 chip, while the GTX 980 uses Maxwell 2.0 with a GM204 chip. The process node is 16 nm for the Quadro and 28 nm for the GTX 980.

Transistor counts diverge significantly: 7,200 million for the Quadro versus 5,200 million for the GTX 980. Die size also differs, with the Quadro at 314 mm² and the GTX 980 at 398 mm². Transistor density favors the Quadro at 22.9M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm².

Clock speeds are higher on the Quadro. Its base clock of 1202 MHz beats the GTX 980's 1127 MHz, and its boost clock of 1480 MHz exceeds the GTX 980's 1216 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) versus 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity favors the Quadro at 8 GB versus 4 GB. Both use GDDR5 and a 256 bit bus, but bandwidth differs: 243.3 GB/s for the Quadro, 224.4 GB/s for the GTX 980.

Shading units and TMUs favor the GTX 980: 2048 versus 1792 shading units, and 128 versus 112 TMUs. Both have 64 ROPs. Pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 all favor the Quadro.

Power requirements diverge. The Quadro has a TDP of 105 W with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GTX 980 draws 165 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The Quadro is notably more power-efficient.

Physical dimensions differ. The Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GTX 980 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, and 40 mm (1.6 inches) wide.

Display outputs vary. The Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GTX 980 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro also lists FP16 performance at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 980 has no recorded FP16 figure.

Release dates differ by roughly two and a half years. The GTX 980 launched in September 2014, while the Quadro P4000 came in February 2017. Both are now end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a higher average benchmark score of 9665 compared to the GTX 980's 8167, and it wins eight of the ten head-to-head tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in DX12 workloads?

A: It depends on the test. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Quadro P4000 leads by 135.2% with a score of 1115 versus 474. In Passmark DirectX 12, however, the GTX 980 leads by 13%, scoring 46 versus 40.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a TDP of 105 W with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GTX 980 draws 165 W, needs two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro P4000 also has recorded FP16 performance at 82.88 GFLOPS, while the GTX 980 has no FP16 figure listed.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 980 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256 bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 980 has 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs, while the Quadro P4000 has 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs. Despite fewer resources, the Quadro achieves higher FP32 performance at 5.304 TFLOPS versus 4.981 TFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins in most modern and compute-focused scenarios. Its 135.2% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 makes it the clear choice for demanding DX12 applications. The 85.4% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan reinforces this for Vulkan-based workloads. OpenCL performance favors the Quadro by 4.4%, making it better suited for general-purpose compute tasks. DirectX 10 and DirectX 9 tests also go to the Quadro, with leads of 24.5% and 10.4% respectively. Passmark G3D and GPU Compute tests favor the Quadro by 3.3% and 3.4%. The Quadro's 8 GB memory capacity and higher bandwidth also make it better for memory-intensive tasks.

The GTX 980 wins in two specific areas. Its 13% advantage in Passmark DirectX 12 suggests certain DX12 workloads may perform better on the older card. Its G2D score of 792 edges out the Quadro's 786 by 0.8%, indicating slightly better 2D performance. The GTX 980's dual-slot design and higher TDP may also appeal to users with specific power or cooling preferences, though the data does not measure those factors directly.

For users deciding between these two end-of-life cards, the recorded benchmarks point clearly toward the Quadro P4000 for almost every workload. The GTX 980 retains a narrow niche in specific DX12 and 2D applications, but the Quadro's overall consistency, higher average score, and massive leads in modern API tests make it the more versatile and future-proof option based on the data available.