NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by several generations of architecture. The data shows a decisive performance gap, driven by fundamental differences in chip design, memory subsystem, and compute capabilities. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural divergence, and the specific use cases where each card retains relevance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. The results are starkly lopsided. The GTX 980M scores 23,832 points, while the Quadro 4000M manages only 5,211 points. This yields a delta of 357.3% in favor of the GTX 980M, meaning it is roughly 4.5 times faster in this workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational obliteration that reflects the massive compute advantage of the newer chip.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 980M has a suite of ten scores, ranging from a Passmark G2D score of 490 to a Passmark G3D score of 7,338. Its average benchmark score sits at 5,308, which places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 4000M, with only a single benchmark entry, has an average score of 5,211, placing it in the 30th percentile. While their percentile ranks are adjacent, the underlying OpenCL data reveals the true scale of the performance chasm. The GTX 980M’s nearest rivals, such as the GeForce 930A and 940M, score within a 0.5% delta, showing it is competitive with entry-level GeForce parts of its own generation. The Quadro 4000M’s nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 760M, is only 0.5% faster, indicating it is similarly positioned among older mobile parts.

The GTX 980M’s raw compute advantage is further evidenced by its FP32 performance of 3.462 TFLOPS, compared to the Quadro 4000M’s 638.4 GFLOPS. This is a 5.4x difference in raw floating-point throughput, which directly translates to the massive OpenCL score delta. In terms of graphics-specific tests, the GTX 980M shows strengths in DirectX 9 (125 points) and DirectX 11 (57 points) on Passmark, while its DirectX 12 score is lower at 31 points. The Quadro 4000M has no comparable per-API scores in the data, making a direct feature-level comparison impossible beyond the single OpenCL result.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on completely different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip based on the older Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This node shrink alone accounts for significant efficiency and density gains. The GTX 980M packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M / mm². The Quadro 4000M contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, with a much lower density of 5.9M / mm². The newer chip is not only bigger in absolute terms but also far denser.

The compute configuration difference is enormous. The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 4000M has only 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GTX 980M has 4.5x more shading units, 1.7x more TMUs, and 2x more ROPs. Consequently, the pixel fill rate of the GTX 980M is 72.13 GPixel/s versus 6.65 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000M, and the texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 26.6 GTexel/s. These are not incremental gains; they represent a complete re-scaling of the graphics pipeline.

Memory is another major differentiator. The GTX 980M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 256-bit bus but at a much lower effective speed of 2.5 Gbps, yielding only 80.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M’s memory clock is listed at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), double the Quadro’s 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The combination of higher capacity and double the bandwidth gives the GTX 980M a significant advantage in texture-heavy scenes and large data sets.

Feature support also differs. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 980M’s newer API support means it can handle modern rendering techniques that the Fermi-based Quadro cannot. The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the GTX 980M’s TDP is not listed, but it is reasonable to assume the newer part requires more power given its performance envelope.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 980M is the superior performer in every measurable category. Its OpenCL score is 357.3% higher, it has more than four times the shading units, double the memory bandwidth, and a much denser, more modern architecture. For any task that involves compute, modern game rendering, or handling large textures, the GTX 980M is the only logical choice.

The Quadro 4000M’s only potential advantage lies in its legacy status. As a Fermi-generation part from 2011, it may be relevant for maintaining compatibility with older professional software or specific legacy drivers. However, its single benchmark score and low fill rates indicate it is severely outclassed. The data suggests that anyone choosing between these two for a new system should select the GTX 980M without hesitation. The Quadro 4000M’s place is strictly in historical or compatibility-driven contexts.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GM204 (GTX 980M) vs GF104 (Quadro 4000M)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 vs Fermi
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Transistors: 5,200 million vs 1,950 million
• Die Size: 398 mm² vs 332 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.1M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) vs 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.4 GB/s vs 80.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1536 vs 336
• TMUs: 96 vs 56
• ROPs: 64 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 72.13 GPixel/s vs 6.65 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 108.2 GTexel/s vs 26.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.462 TFLOPS vs 638.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: Not listed vs 100 W
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs Not listed
• Release Date: 2014-10-06 vs 2011-02-21

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980M in compute workloads?

A: The GTX 980M scores 23,832 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 357.3% higher than the Quadro 4000M’s score of 5,211.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, while the Quadro 4000M has 336, a 4.5x difference.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, double the Quadro 4000M’s 80.0 GB/s, despite both using a 256-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro 4000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 980M also supports Vulkan 1.4, which the Quadro 4000M does not.

Q: Which card has a larger memory capacity?

A: The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, compared to the Quadro 4000M’s 2 GB.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The GTX 980M achieves 72.13 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 4000M is limited to 6.65 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M wins in every scenario where raw performance is the primary criterion. Its compute dominance, as shown by the OpenCL score, makes it suitable for general-purpose GPU computing, modern game rendering, and any application that can leverage DirectX 12 or Vulkan features. Its higher texture and pixel fill rates mean it can handle high-resolution textures and complex geometry without bottlenecking. The 8 GB frame buffer provides ample headroom for large textures or multi-monitor setups. For any user building a gaming laptop or a mobile workstation for 3D rendering, the GTX 980M is the clear winner.

The Quadro 4000M has no performance wins in the data. Its only advantage is its age. As a 2011-era Fermi part, it might be the only option for legacy systems that require specific older drivers or software certifications that were validated on that architecture. Its lower power draw of 100 W (versus an unlisted TDP for the GTX 980M) could be a factor in extremely power-constrained environments, but this is speculative given the lack of a comparable figure. In any head-to-head comparison based on the provided benchmark and specification data, the Quadro 4000M is strictly inferior.