NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two mobile GPUs by era and intent. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the decisive performance winner in the only shared benchmark, delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 23832 against 5986 for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, a 74.9% advantage. The Quadro K4000M is an older Kepler-based professional part, while the GTX 980M is a Maxwell 2.0 consumer part. For any user prioritizing raw compute throughput, the GTX 980M is the only choice from this data. The Quadro K4000M’s sole recorded score places it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 980M sits at the 31st percentile, but that percentile ranking is based on different benchmark sets. The GTX 980M’s average benchmark score of 5308 across ten tests is a more comprehensive measure of its capabilities. The Quadro K4000M, with a single recorded score, appears less versatile in the database. Choose the GTX 980M for compute-heavy workloads. The Quadro K4000M, despite its professional branding, offers no measurable advantage in the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M operates at a base clock of 1038 MHz and a boost clock of 1127 MHz. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is locked at 601 MHz for both base and boost.

Q: How much memory do these mobile GPUs offer?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 256-bit memory bus.

Q: Which GPU provides higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980M delivers 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to 89.60 GB/s for the Quadro K4000M. The GTX 980M’s memory runs at 5 Gbps effective, while the K4000M runs at 2.8 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the architecture generations of these two chips?

A: The Quadro K4000M is based on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip. The GTX 980M uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 980M has 1536 shading units, while the Quadro K4000M has 960. The GTX 980M also has more texture mapping units (96 vs 80) and more render output units (64 vs 32).

Q: What is the DirectX API support level?

A: The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 980M has Vulkan 1.4 support versus Vulkan 1.2.175 for the K4000M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design generations at the same manufacturing node. Both are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the internal designs differ substantially. The Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GeForce GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm² for the K4000M and 13.1M per mm² for the GTX 980M. The GTX 980M is a denser, larger design.

The Quadro K4000M belongs to the Kepler architecture, a predecessor generation. The GTX 980M is built on Maxwell 2.0, which introduces architectural improvements. The K4000M’s generation is listed as “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)”, while the GTX 980M is from the “GeForce 900M” generation. The GTX 980M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M, and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The Quadro K4000M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

The shading and geometry pipelines differ in scale. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 980M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Neither chip includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 980M’s pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s is dramatically higher than the K4000M’s 12.02 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 108.2 GTexel/s for the GTX 980M versus 48.08 GTexel/s for the K4000M. Floating point performance (FP32) is 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS for the K4000M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. Clock speeds are the most obvious gap: the GTX 980M runs at a 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost, while the K4000M is fixed at 601 MHz for both. Memory size is 8 GB for the GTX 980M against 4 GB for the K4000M. Memory bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s. Memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 980M, compared to 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) for the K4000M.

The GTX 980M has more of every processing unit: 1536 shading units versus 960, 96 TMUs versus 80, and 64 ROPs versus 32. The power draw for the GTX 980M is not recorded in the database, while the K4000M has a TDP of 100 W. Both use an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors and an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The production status for both is end-of-life. The K4000M was released on 2012-05-31, while the GTX 980M was released on 2014-10-06.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GTX 980M scores 23832, while the K4000M scores 5986. This is a 74.9% advantage for the GTX 980M. In absolute terms, the GTX 980M’s score is nearly four times higher. This single result dominates the head-to-head analysis.

The GTX 980M also has a broader benchmark profile. Its ten recorded tests include a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 649, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 17703, and PassMark scores across DirectX 9 (125), DirectX 10 (35), DirectX 11 (57), DirectX 12 (31), G2D (490), G3D (7338), and GPU compute (2816). The K4000M has only one recorded benchmark. The GTX 980M’s average benchmark score is 5308, while the K4000M’s average is 5986. This is notable: the K4000M’s average is higher than the GTX 980M’s average, but that is because the K4000M’s single score comes from a different test set.

The nearest rivals in the database contextualize both GPUs. The K4000M’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987 (0% delta), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (-0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (-0.2% delta). The GTX 980M’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5317 (-0.2% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322 (-0.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284 (0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358 (-0.9% delta). These rival comparisons show that the K4000M sits in a performance tier near other workstation and midrange parts, while the GTX 980M’s average score places it near entry-level mobile GPUs, which is a consequence of its multi-test average.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, so the data supports it as the stronger compute performer. Its advantage in OpenCL is overwhelming: 23832 versus 5986, a 74.9% lead. This GPU also offers more memory (8 GB vs 4 GB), higher bandwidth (160.4 GB/s vs 89.60 GB/s), and more processing units across the board. For any workload that scales with shading units, ROPs, or memory throughput, the GTX 980M is the clear winner. Its higher clock speeds (1038 MHz base, 1127 MHz boost) further reinforce this. The GTX 980M also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which may matter for modern applications.

The Quadro K4000M does not win any recorded benchmark against the GTX 980M. Its only advantage in the data is its lower TDP of 100 W, while the GTX 980M’s TDP is not recorded. For users constrained by power draw, the K4000M’s 100 W figure is an explicit specification. The K4000M also has a higher average benchmark score (5986) than the GTX 980M (5308), but this is due to the different benchmark compositions, not a real performance win. The K4000M’s percentile rank of 34 is slightly higher than the GTX 980M’s 31, but again, these percentiles derive from different test sets.

In practical terms, the GTX 980M is the choice for rendering, compute, and modern gaming workloads based on its superior specifications and direct benchmark result. The Quadro K4000M, with its professional branding and lower power draw, may appeal to users with legacy workstation software that expects a Quadro driver, but the recorded data provides no performance justification for choosing it over the GTX 980M. The GTX 980M wins the head-to-head by a wide margin and offers a more complete feature set in the database.