NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in overall benchmark averages?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 holds a higher average benchmark score of 9,665 compared to the GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK's 9,474. The Quadro P4000 also sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the TITAN BLACK's 46th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The biggest win for the Quadro P4000 comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 41,786 against the TITAN BLACK's 29,561. That is a 41.4% advantage for the Pascal-based Quadro.

Q: How do the two compare in DirectX 12 performance?

A: The Quadro P4000 leads in the Passmark DirectX 12 test with a score of 40, while the TITAN BLACK scores 34. The delta is 17.6% in favor of the Quadro P4000.

Q: Do the AMD rivals listed for each card show a different competitive picture?

A: The Quadro P4000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100, which trails by just 0.1%. The TITAN BLACK's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760, which is 0.2% behind it, while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 sits 1.7% behind.

Q: Which card has more shading units but lower clock speeds?

A: The TITAN BLACK packs 2,880 shading units and 240 texture mapping units, but runs at a base clock of 889 MHz and a boost of 980 MHz. The Quadro P4000 has fewer resources—1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs—yet operates at a higher 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK are listed as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent separate architectural generations from NVIDIA. The Quadro P4000 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP104 chip fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The TITAN BLACK relies on the older Kepler architecture, built around the GK110B chip on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC.

The manufacturing process difference is stark. The Quadro P4000's 16 nm node allows for a transistor density of 22.9M per mm², while the TITAN BLACK's 28 nm process achieves only 12.6M per mm². Despite the density advantage, the Quadro P4000 packs 7,200 million transistors on a die size of 314 mm². The TITAN BLACK contains 7,080 million transistors but spreads them across a much larger 561 mm² die.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Quadro P4000 starts at 1202 MHz base and boosts to 1480 MHz, while the TITAN BLACK operates at 889 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. Memory clocks are also distinct: the Quadro runs at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), whereas the TITAN BLACK uses 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The TITAN BLACK does not have a listed FP16 performance figure, while the Quadro P4000 lists FP16 at 82.88 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio.

API support shows generational progress. The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the TITAN BLACK is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro P4000 outputs video via 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the TITAN BLACK offers a legacy mix of 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Quadro P4000 wins all nine head-to-head comparisons. The margins vary from moderate to overwhelming. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 against the TITAN BLACK's 27,218, a 33% lead. The Vulkan test is even more decisive, with 41,786 versus 29,561, yielding a 41.4% advantage.

DirectX legacy tests favor the Quadro by wide margins. The Passmark DirectX 9 test shows 181 for the Quadro against 133 for the TITAN BLACK, a 36.1% difference. DirectX 10 results are similar: 66 versus 47, a 40.4% lead. The newer DirectX 11 and 12 tests show smaller but still clear gaps of 17.8% (86 vs. 73) and 17.6% (40 vs. 34), respectively.

The compute-oriented Passmark GPU Compute test gives the Quadro P4000 a 31.9% edge, scoring 4,913 versus 3,726. In pure rasterization, Passmark G3D shows 11,466 for the Quadro against 9,184 for the TITAN BLACK, a 24.8% margin. Even the 2D test, Passmark G2D, goes to the Quadro at 786 versus 595, a 32.1% improvement.

The TITAN BLACK does have one benchmark not present on the Quadro P4000: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 24,172. That does not count as a head-to-head win because the Quadro P4000 has no comparable Metal result in the data. Across all shared tests, the Quadro P4000's average score of 9,665 beats the TITAN BLACK's 9,474, reinforcing the per-test pattern.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystem is one of the clearest differentiators. The Quadro P4000 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN BLACK has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, achieving 336.0 GB/s. The TITAN BLACK therefore has a 38% bandwidth advantage, yet it cannot translate that into benchmark wins.

Compute resources tell a conflicting story. The TITAN BLACK has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro P4000 counters with 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Kepler card has more shaders and texture units, but the Pascal card has more ROPs. Pixel rate favors the Quadro at 94.72 GPixel/s versus 58.80 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors the TITAN BLACK at 235.2 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is close: 5.304 TFLOPS for the Quadro, 5.645 TFLOPS for the TITAN BLACK.

Power and physical design differ substantially. The Quadro P4000 draws 105 W and uses a single 6-pin connector, with a suggested 300 W power supply. The TITAN BLACK consumes 250 W, requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 600 W power supply. The Quadro is a single-slot card at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The TITAN BLACK is dual-slot, measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, and 38 mm (1.5 inches) wide.

Release timing is separated by years. The TITAN BLACK launched on 2014-02-17, while the Quadro P4000 arrived on 2017-02-05. The TITAN BLACK lists its predecessor as GeForce 600 and successor as GeForce 900. The Quadro P4000 names Quadro Maxwell as predecessor and Quadro Volta as successor.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the data set, making the use-case split heavily one-sided. Its advantages are most pronounced in compute and API-level workloads. The 41.4% Vulkan lead and 33% OpenCL lead suggest the Pascal architecture handles modern compute interfaces far more efficiently. The 31.9% Passmark GPU Compute win reinforces that pattern, indicating the Quadro P4000 is the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks.

In legacy DirectX workloads, the Quadro P4000 also dominates, with margins of 36.1% in DirectX 9 and 40.4% in DirectX 10. Even in the more modern DirectX 11 and 12 tests, it maintains leads of 17.8% and 17.6%, respectively. That consistency across API generations makes the Quadro P4000 the stronger pick for compatibility with older applications while still handling newer ones.

The TITAN BLACK does have physical advantages that matter in specific scenarios. Its 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are the highest numbers in either spec sheet. The 384-bit memory bus and 240 TMUs give it a texture-rate edge that could benefit texture-heavy workloads if software is optimized for Kepler's resource allocation. However, no benchmark in the data set shows that advantage translating into a win.

For a user prioritizing modern software, compute performance, and lower power draw, the Quadro P4000 is the clear choice. Its 105 W TDP versus the TITAN BLACK's 250 W means less heat and a smaller power supply requirement. The single-slot form factor also fits in denser systems. The TITAN BLACK's dual-slot width and 600 W suggested power supply make it a harder fit for compact or multi-GPU configurations.

The TITAN BLACK's only unique benchmark result is Geekbench Metal at 24,172. If a workload specifically requires Metal API support—which the Quadro P4000 lacks in the data—the TITAN BLACK becomes relevant. But for all shared metrics, the Quadro P4000 wins, including a higher percentile rank (47 vs. 46) and a higher average benchmark score (9,665 vs. 9,474). The data does not present a scenario where the TITAN BLACK outperforms the Quadro P4000 in any common benchmark.