NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 represent two vastly different eras of mobile and workstation computing, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The GTX 980M, built on Maxwell 2.0, utterly dominates the older Fermi-based Quadro 4000 in every measurable benchmark category, with the data showing a 378.7% lead in the sole head-to-head test. The Quadro 4000, a 2010 workstation card, retains relevance only in legacy compatibility contexts, while the GTX 980M stands as a high-performance mobile solution from the GeForce 900M generation. This analysis breaks down the architectural chasm, benchmark deltas, and specification gaps between these two end-of-life NVIDIA products.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M for any user prioritizing raw performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 points versus the Quadro 4000’s 4,979, a 378.7% advantage that makes the older card virtually non-competitive for compute workloads. The GTX 980M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 31st versus the Quadro 4000’s 29th, and its average benchmark score of 5,308 far exceeds the Quadro’s 4,979. For gaming, content creation, or general GPU acceleration, the GTX 980M is the only rational choice from this pairing.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, however, is not without a niche. Its launch MSRP of 1,199 USD reflects its original workstation positioning, and it offers a single-slot form factor with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, making it suitable for legacy multi-display setups in professional environments. It also carries a 142 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU, whereas the GTX 980M’s power draw is unspecified in the data. Users running aging professional software that requires Fermi-era driver support may find the Quadro 4000 acceptable, but benchmark results indicate that even entry-level integrated graphics from its rival list—such as the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics with an average score of 4,998—match or slightly exceed its performance. The GTX 980M is the clear victor; the Quadro 4000 is only for those with specific legacy hardware requirements.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural lineages. The GTX 980M utilizes the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, while the Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip from the Fermi architecture, built on an older 40 nm process. Transistor counts reflect this generational leap: the GTX 980M packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.1M transistors per mm², whereas the Quadro 4000 contains 3,100 million transistors on a larger 529 mm² die, yielding just 5.9M per mm². The manufacturing node advantage is stark, enabling the GTX 980M to deliver far higher performance within a mobile MXM module form factor.

Core configurations differ dramatically. The GTX 980M features 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units, while the Quadro 4000 offers only 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This six-fold difference in shading units directly translates to the GTX 980M’s 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 980M also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 4000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support in the data. Both cards share OpenGL 4.6 and GDDR5 memory, but the GTX 980M’s memory subsystem is far more capable, as detailed in the specification section.

The GTX 980M’s release in October 2014 places it four years after the Quadro 4000’s November 2010 debut. The predecessor-successor chains also differ: the GTX 980M follows the GeForce 800M and precedes GeForce 10 Mobile, while the Quadro 4000 comes after Quadro FX Tesla and leads to Quadro Kepler. Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 980M represents a mature mobile gaming architecture, whereas the Quadro 4000 is an early workstation implementation of Fermi.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are lopsided. The GTX 980M scores 23,832 versus the Quadro 4000’s 4,979, a delta of 378.7% in favor of the newer card. This single test underscores the compute capability gap: OpenCL performance is critical for GPU-accelerated applications, and the GTX 980M delivers nearly five times the throughput of the Quadro 4000. For context, the Quadro 4000’s average benchmark score of 4,979 places it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 980M’s average of 5,308 puts it at the 31st percentile—but that average includes ten separate tests for the GTX 980M versus only one for the Quadro 4000, making the GTX 980M’s multi-test consistency an additional point in its favor.

Beyond the head-to-head, the GTX 980M’s broader benchmark suite reveals its strengths. In Passmark G3D, it scores 7,338, with DirectX 9 at 125, DirectX 11 at 57, and DirectX 12 at 31 points. Its Passmark G2D score of 490 and GPU compute score of 2,816 further demonstrate balanced performance across legacy and modern APIs. The Quadro 4000 lacks any of these additional benchmark entries, meaning the GTX 980M’s 378.7% win in OpenCL is the only direct comparison, but the specification sheet makes the outcome predictable across all workloads. The nearest rivals for each card reinforce the gap: the GTX 980M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 0.5% delta, while the Quadro 4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 1% delta, showing both cards sit in their respective performance tiers, but those tiers are worlds apart.

Specification Differences

The GTX 980M and Quadro 4000 diverge on nearly every specification field. Memory capacity favors the GTX 980M at 8 GB GDDR5 versus the Quadro 4000’s 2 GB, with bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s compared to 89.86 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the GTX 980M’s memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) far exceeds the Quadro 4000’s 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The GTX 980M also has higher pixel and texture rates: 72.13 GPixel/s and 108.2 GTexel/s, respectively, versus 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all three times or more numerous on the GTX 980M, as noted earlier.

Form factor and power delivery separate the two cards further. The GTX 980M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors, designed for laptop integration, while the Quadro 4000 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W; the GTX 980M’s TDP is not listed. Display outputs differ as well: the GTX 980M’s outputs are portable-device dependent, whereas the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. Clock speeds show the GTX 980M with a base of 1038 MHz and boost of 1127 MHz, while the Quadro 4000 has no base or boost clocks listed, only its memory clock. The GTX 980M’s 5,200 million transistors and 28 nm process also contrast sharply with the Quadro 4000’s 3,100 million transistors and 40 nm process, as detailed in the architecture section.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23,832 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 378.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 4,979. This makes the GTX 980M nearly five times faster in this compute workload.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The GTX 980M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the GTX 980M’s memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 4000.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a 28 nm process and 5,200 million transistors, while the Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip on Fermi with a 40 nm process and 3,100 million transistors. The GTX 980M also has 1,536 shading units versus 256 on the Quadro 4000.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000 supports only DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the physical form factors of these GPUs?

A: The GTX 980M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors, suitable for laptops. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores and percentiles compare?

A: The GTX 980M has an average benchmark score of 5,308 and sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 has an average score of 4,979 and sits in the 29th percentile. The GTX 980M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 0.5% delta, and the Quadro 4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 1% delta.