NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M are two Maxwell 2.0-era GPUs that serve fundamentally different markets, yet their benchmark data reveals a surprisingly complex performance relationship. The GTX 980M wins the majority of head-to-head tests (7 out of 10), but the Quadro M4000 secures decisive victories in specific workloads that matter for professional use. The data indicates that the GTX 980M is the stronger raw compute performer, leading by 9% in Passmark G3D and 19.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro M4000 counters with a 39.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan and a 37.3% advantage in Passmark G2D. The Quadro M4000 also holds a 4.8% edge in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, suggesting that its architectural configuration, while lower in raw throughput, is better optimized for certain modern API workloads. For buyers, the choice hinges on whether the workload prioritizes the GTX 980M’s higher peak performance or the Quadro M4000’s specific API efficiency and professional feature set.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but nuanced verdict. The GTX 980M is the outright performance winner in most conventional graphics benchmarks. Its Passmark G3D score of 7338 versus the Quadro M4000’s 6680 represents a 9% advantage, and its Geekbench OpenCL score of 23832 versus 19118 is a substantial 19.8% lead. This makes the GTX 980M the better choice for users whose primary workloads involve standard DirectX rendering, OpenCL compute, or general 3D gaming performance, where its higher FP32 throughput of 3.462 TFLOPS (compared to 2.573 TFLOPS) translates directly into faster frame rates and compute times.

However, the Quadro M4000 is not without its merits. Its 39.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan (24640 vs 17703) and 37.3% lead in Passmark G2D (673 vs 490) indicate that it handles specific API and 2D workloads with significantly greater efficiency. The 4.8% win in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (680 vs 649) further suggests that the Quadro M4000’s architecture, despite having fewer shading units (1664 vs 1536 for the GTX 980M — wait, the Quadro actually has more shading units), is better tuned for modern low-level APIs. The Quadro M4000 also features a higher memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s, which benefits memory-intensive professional applications.

For professional users in CAD, scientific visualization, or compute environments that leverage Vulkan or specific OpenCL paths, the Quadro M4000’s wins in those specific tests make it the more appropriate choice, even though it loses the overall G3D race. The GTX 980M, with its higher clock speeds (1038 MHz base, 1127 MHz boost) and superior raw texture and pixel rates (108.2 GTexel/s and 72.13 GPixel/s respectively), is the better all-around performer for consumer workloads. The data ultimately shows that the GTX 980M is the faster GPU for general graphics, but the Quadro M4000 is the more specialized tool for specific professional APIs.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture — Maxwell 2.0 — and are built on the same GM204 chip using TSMC’s 28 nm process. They both feature 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding an identical transistor density of 13.1M / mm². This means the core silicon is essentially the same, but NVIDIA has configured it differently for each market segment.

The most significant architectural difference lies in the compute unit configuration. The Quadro M4000 has 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 980M, conversely, has 1536 shading units and 96 TMUs, but retains the same 64 ROPs. This means the Quadro M4000 has 8.3% more shading units and TMUs, but the GTX 980M compensates with significantly higher clock speeds. The GTX 980M’s base clock of 1038 MHz and boost clock of 1127 MHz drive its FP32 performance to 3.462 TFLOPS, while the Quadro M4000, whose base and boost clocks are not listed in the data, achieves only 2.573 TFLOPS. This clock advantage also explains the GTX 980M’s superior texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s versus 80.39 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s versus 49.47 GPixel/s.

Memory configuration also differs. Both have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the Quadro M4000 runs its memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) yielding 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 980M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 160.4 GB/s. This 19.9% bandwidth advantage for the Quadro M4000 is a key differentiator for memory-bound workloads.

Physical and interface differences are also notable. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card with a 241 mm length, 111 mm height, 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and outputs 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 980M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with no power connectors, relying on the laptop’s power delivery, and has portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro M4000 has a 120 W TDP, while the GTX 980M’s TDP is not specified. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 980M. Its FP32 throughput of 3.462 TFLOPS exceeds the Quadro M4000’s 2.573 TFLOPS by 34.5%. This is reflected in the Geekbench OpenCL score, where the GTX 980M leads 23832 to 19118, a 19.8% margin.

Q: Is the Quadro M4000 better for any specific API?

A: Yes, particularly Vulkan. The Quadro M4000 scores 24640 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 39.2% higher than the GTX 980M’s 17703. It also wins 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 by 4.8% (680 vs 649).

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a clear advantage. While both have 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, the Quadro M4000’s memory runs at 6 Gbps effective, providing 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, versus the GTX 980M’s 5 Gbps effective and 160.4 GB/s. That is a 19.9% bandwidth differential.

Q: Which GPU performs better in DirectX 11 legacy workloads?

A: The GTX 980M is decisively better. It scores 57 in Passmark DirectX 11 versus 49 for the Quadro M4000, a 14% advantage. It also leads in DirectX 9 (125 vs 113, a 9.6% margin) and DirectX 10 (35 vs 33, a 5.7% margin).

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot, 241 mm long, 111 mm tall desktop card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU. The GTX 980M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices, with dimensions not specified.

Q: How do the overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Quadro M4000 has a higher average benchmark score of 5467 versus the GTX 980M’s 5308, despite losing the majority of individual tests. This is driven by the Quadro M4000’s massive 39.2% win in Geekbench Vulkan and 37.3% win in Passmark G2D, which skew the average.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M |

|---|---|---|

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | GeForce 900M |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1038 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1127 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 104 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 72.13 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 108.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.573 TFLOPS | 3.462 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2014-10-06 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | GeForce 10 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear split between the two GPUs’ strengths. The GTX 980M dominates the traditional DirectX and compute benchmarks, while the Quadro M4000 excels in Vulkan and 2D workloads.

Starting with the GTX 980M’s wins, the most significant is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 23832 against the Quadro M4000’s 19118, a 19.8% margin. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput and confirms its advantage in general-purpose compute. In Passmark G3D, the GTX 980M scores 7338 versus 6680, a 9% lead that reflects its superior pixel and texture rates. The DirectX legacy tests also favor the GTX 980M: it wins DirectX 11 by 14% (57 vs 49), DirectX 12 by 16.1% (31 vs 26), DirectX 9 by 9.6% (125 vs 113), and DirectX 10 by 5.7% (35 vs 33). The GTX 980M also takes Passmark GPU Compute by 5.5% (2816 vs 2660).

The Quadro M4000’s wins are fewer but more dramatic. Its most decisive victory is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 24640 versus 17703, a 39.2% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set and suggests a significantly more efficient Vulkan driver or hardware implementation. The Quadro M4000 also wins Passmark G2D by 37.3% (673 vs 490), which is a 2D graphics benchmark that likely benefits from the Quadro’s professional display pipeline and higher memory bandwidth. Finally, it edges out the GTX 980M in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 by 4.8% (680 vs 649), a modern DX12 test where the Quadro M4000’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth appear to compensate for its lower clock speeds.

The overall win count — 7 for the GTX 980M and 3 for the Quadro M4000 — might suggest a one-sided affair, but the magnitude of the Quadro M4000’s wins tells a different story. The 39.2% Vulkan margin and 37.3% G2D margin are far larger than any single GTX 980M victory. The GTX 980M’s largest win is the 19.8% in OpenCL, followed by 16.1% in DX12. The data indicates that for users working in Vulkan-based applications or 2D professional software, the Quadro M4000 offers a substantial performance advantage that outweighs its losses in other areas. For users in DirectX-centric or OpenCL-heavy workloads, the GTX 980M is the clear choice, with consistent double-digit leads across most tests. The average benchmark scores reflect this trade-off: the Quadro M4000’s 5467 average is 3% higher than the GTX 980M’s 5308, driven by its extreme wins in Vulkan and G2D, despite losing the majority of individual tests.