NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct comparison points between the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, both drawing from the Geekbench suite. In the OpenCL test, the GTX 980M scores 23,832 against the Quadro K4000's 6,816. That is a delta of 71.4% in favor of the GeForce part, meaning the GTX 980M delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap is decisive and not a marginal edge.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. The GTX 980M posts 17,703 while the Quadro K4000 records 6,964. The delta here is 60.7% in favor of the GTX 980M. Both benchmarks point the same direction: the mobile GeForce part holds a commanding lead over the workstation Quadro in these API-level tests. The Quadro K4000 does not win either of the two head-to-head comparisons available in the database. Its wins count is zero, while the GTX 980M takes both.

Context from the broader database helps frame these numbers. The Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5,982. Its nearest rivals include the Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (a 0.1% difference), the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (0.1% difference), and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5,970 (0.2% difference). The GTX 980M, meanwhile, sits at the 31st percentile with an average score of 5,308. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce 930A at 5,317 (0.2% difference), the GeForce 840M at 5,322 (0.3% difference), and the GeForce 940M at 5,284 (0.5% difference). So while the GTX 980M dominates the head-to-head tests, its overall average score is actually lower than the Quadro K4000's, which reflects a different mix of workloads across the full benchmark database.

The striking part is the contrast between the two GPUs' average scores and their direct comparison results. The Quadro K4000 averages 5,982 across all recorded tests, yet in the two shared tests it trails badly. The GTX 980M averages 5,308 overall, yet it wins both shared tests by wide margins. This suggests the shared tests emphasize capabilities where the GTX 980M's architecture is substantially stronger, while the Quadro K4000's overall average is buoyed by other workloads not present in the head-to-head set.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M wins in compute-heavy API workloads. The OpenCL result of 23,832 versus 6,816 represents a 71.4% advantage, and the Vulkan result of 17,703 versus 6,964 represents a 60.7% advantage. These are the only two direct comparisons available, and the GTX 980M takes both. For users whose primary applications leverage OpenCL or Vulkan for general-purpose GPU compute, the data is unambiguous: the GTX 980M is the faster card by a large margin.

The Quadro K4000 does not register a win in any direct head-to-head test. However, its average benchmark score of 5,982 exceeds the GTX 980M's 5,308. That overall average includes a Geekbench Metal score of 4,166, which is not part of the head-to-head set. The Metal result suggests the Quadro K4000 has some strengths in Apple's Metal API, at least relative to its own performance in other tests. The GTX 980M has no recorded Metal score in the database, so a direct comparison there is not possible.

For use-case planning, the split is clear. If the workload runs through OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 980M is the choice, with margins that are hard to ignore. If the workload relies on Metal, the Quadro K4000 has a recorded score, but no comparable GTX 980M number exists, so the data cannot confirm an advantage either way. The GTX 980M also shows strong results in DirectX legacy tests: a Passmark DirectX 9 score of 125, DirectX 10 score of 35, DirectX 11 score of 57, and DirectX 12 score of 31. The Quadro K4000 has no Passmark scores recorded, so no comparison is possible on those older DirectX paths.

The GTX 980M additionally records a Passmark G3D score of 7,338 and a Passmark GPU compute score of 2,816, along with a Passmark G2D score of 490 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 649. None of these have Quadro K4000 counterparts in the database. The practical takeaway: the GTX 980M is the demonstrated winner in every directly comparable workload, while the Quadro K4000's case rests on its higher overall average and its Metal result alone.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins with a score of 23,832 against the NVIDIA Quadro K4000's 6,816, a 71.4% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The GTX 980M scores 17,703 in the Vulkan test, while the Quadro K4000 scores 6,964. The GTX 980M leads by 60.7%.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 win any direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Quadro K4000 in the head-to-head set; the GTX 980M wins both of the two shared tests.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests?

A: The Quadro K4000 has an average score of 5,982, which is higher than the GTX 980M's average of 5,308. The GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 have any benchmark result that the GTX 980M lacks?

A: Yes. The Quadro K4000 has a Geekbench Metal score of 4,166. The GTX 980M has no recorded Metal score in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card based on average score?

A: The Quadro K4000's nearest rival is the Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0.1% difference). The GTX 980M's nearest rival is the GeForce 930A at 5,317 (0.2% difference).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Quadro K4000 uses a 3 GB GDDR5 frame buffer on a 192 bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. Memory size favors the GTX 980M by a factor of more than 2.5, and bandwidth is roughly 19% higher.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Quadro K4000 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective). The GTX 980M has a base clock of 1,038 MHz, a boost clock of 1,127 MHz, and a memory clock of 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro K4000's memory clock is higher in raw MHz, but the GTX 980M's wider bus compensates with higher total bandwidth.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units (exactly double), 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s for the Quadro K4000 versus 72.13 GPixel/s for the GTX 980M. Texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 108.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the Quadro K4000 versus 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M. Every throughput metric favors the GTX 980M.

Form factor and power also differ. The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 250 W, a TDP of 80 W, and dimensions of 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GTX 980M is an MXM module with no power connector listed, no TDP recorded, and no dimensions listed. The bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro K4000 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 980M. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro K4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 980M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K4000 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The GTX 980M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. It packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for a density of 13.1M per mm². The GTX 980M has roughly double the transistor count and a die that is about 80% larger.

API support differs in meaningful ways. The Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level on the GTX 980M (12_1 versus 11_0) and the newer Vulkan version indicate a more modern feature set. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their respective generation dates.

The generation placement differs. The Quadro K4000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, released on 2013-02-28, with a predecessor of Quadro Fermi and a successor of Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 980M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, released on 2014-10-06, with a predecessor of GeForce 800M and a successor of GeForce 10 Mobile. The GTX 980M launched roughly 19 months later.

The Quadro K4000 carries a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD. The GTX 980M has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Both cards are end-of-life products. The Quadro K4000's transistor density of 11.5M per mm² is lower than the GTX 980M's 13.1M per mm², reflecting the newer Maxwell design's improved packing efficiency on the same 28 nm node.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision based on workload. For OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the definitive choice. Its OpenCL score of 23,832 is 71.4% higher than the Quadro K4000's 6,816, and its Vulkan score of 17,703 is 60.7% higher than 6,964. The GTX 980M also offers double the shading units, more than double the ROPs, a wider memory bus, nearly double the FP32 throughput, and more than five times the pixel rate. For any application that can leverage those resources through the supported APIs, the GTX 980M is the stronger part.

For users constrained to the Quadro K4000's ecosystem, the card is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 5,982 exceeds the GTX 980M's 5,308, and it sits at a slightly higher percentile (34th versus 31st). It also has a recorded Metal score of 4,166, which the GTX 980M entirely lacks. A workstation relying on Metal-specific workloads may find the Quadro K4000 adequate, though no direct comparison exists to prove superiority.

The GTX 980M's nearest rivals in the database are the GeForce 930A (0.2% difference), GeForce 840M (0.3% difference), and GeForce 940M (0.5% difference), all clustered within a narrow band around its 5,308 average. The Quadro K4000's nearest rivals are similarly close: the Quadro K4000M (0.1% difference), FirePro W4100 (0.1% difference), and Radeon HD 8750M (0.2% difference). Both cards sit in tightly contested performance neighborhoods when viewed across the full benchmark suite, but the head-to-head tests are not close at all.

The recommendation follows the benchmarks. Choose the GTX 980M for OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, for DirectX 9 through 12 legacy paths, and for any task that benefits from 8 GB of memory, 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, or 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Choose the Quadro K4000 only if the workload is specifically tied to Metal or if the higher overall average score and workstation form factor (single-slot, 80 W TDP, PCIe 2.0 x16, DVI and DisplayPort outputs) are decisive factors. The recorded data does not show a single shared benchmark where the Quadro K4000 comes out ahead.