NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though uneven, competitive picture between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the TITAN Z wins both, but the margin of victory tells two very different stories.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN Z scores 25,465 against the Quadro M4000M’s 19,989. That is a 27.4% advantage, a substantial gap that reflects the raw compute-oriented design of the older flagship. The OpenCL workload appears to scale strongly with the TITAN Z’s larger shader array and wider memory bus. The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, trails by a wide margin, and its 19,989 score places it in a completely different performance tier for this type of workload.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably. Here, the TITAN Z scores 22,006, while the Quadro M4000M posts 20,971. The delta shrinks to just 4.9%. This is a much closer contest, and the data implies that the newer Maxwell architecture in the Quadro handles Vulkan’s modern rendering paths more efficiently relative to its hardware resources. The TITAN Z still wins, but the small margin suggests that for graphics-centric, API-modern workloads, the Quadro is far more competitive than its OpenCL deficit would indicate.

Looking at the broader database context, the TITAN Z’s average benchmark score is 23,736. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9070 at 23,877 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6800S at 24,063 (1.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile at 23,628 (0.5% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile at 23,518 (0.9% lower). The TITAN Z sits almost exactly at parity with these modern cards, which is remarkable for a 2014 flagship. Its percentile ranking of 69 among all GPUs confirms that it remains a strong performer even by contemporary database standards.

The Quadro M4000M’s average is 20,480, placing it in the 65th percentile. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly around it: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20,534 (0.3% higher), the Intel Arc B570 at 20,556 (0.4% higher), the Intel Arc A750 at 20,582 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X at 20,662 (0.9% higher). The Quadro is effectively locked in a dead heat with these cards, meaning its performance is competitive with mid-range modern offerings, but it lacks the headroom the TITAN Z enjoys.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, and the data shows how that plays out in their specifications. The TITAN Z is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK110B chip. The Quadro M4000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. The transistor counts, however, diverge sharply. The TITAN Z packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro M4000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Quadro’s denser packing is a direct result of architectural improvements in Maxwell that allowed more functionality per transistor.

The compute resources tell a story of two different design philosophies. The TITAN Z fields 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The TITAN Z has more than double the shader count and triple the TMU count, but the Quadro has 33% more ROPs. This explains the benchmark behavior: the TITAN Z dominates in raw compute (OpenCL), while the Quadro’s higher ROP count helps it stay closer in graphics-oriented workloads like Vulkan.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The TITAN Z runs at a base of 705 MHz with a boost of 876 MHz. The Quadro M4000M starts at 975 MHz and boosts to 1013 MHz. The Quadro’s higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller shader array, but not enough to close the raw throughput gap. The FP32 performance numbers confirm this: the TITAN Z delivers 5.046 TFLOPS, while the Quadro manages 2.593 TFLOPS. The TITAN Z is roughly 94% faster in raw floating-point throughput.

Memory configurations are another major divergence. The TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s. The TITAN Z has more than double the memory bandwidth, which likely contributes to its strong OpenCL showing. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the TITAN Z runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), another factor in the bandwidth gap.

API support differs in one notable way. The TITAN Z supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ: the TITAN Z lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro’s newer Vulkan support may explain its relatively strong performance in the Vulkan benchmark despite its smaller hardware footprint.

The Verdict

The database paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z is the superior performer in raw compute and overall average score. Its average benchmark score of 23,736 is 15.9% higher than the Quadro M4000M’s 20,480. It wins both head-to-head tests, and its percentile ranking (69th vs. 65th) reflects a higher standing in the overall GPU landscape.

However, the verdict is not one-sided in a practical sense. The Quadro M4000M’s Vulkan performance is within 4.9% of the TITAN Z, and its power envelope is dramatically lower at 100 W versus 375 W. The TITAN Z requires a 750 W suggested power supply and dual 8-pin connectors, while the Quadro is an MXM module with no external power connectors. For systems where power delivery and physical space are constrained, the Quadro is the only viable option between the two.

The data also shows that the TITAN Z competes with modern mid-range and high-end mobile GPUs, while the Quadro sits at parity with current mid-range parts. The TITAN Z’s average score is within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 6800S, a modern discrete laptop GPU. The Quadro’s average is within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon R9 M390X, a much older part. In absolute performance terms, the TITAN Z is the clear winner. In efficiency and modern API support, the Quadro has advantages that matter for specific use cases.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The TITAN Z uses the GK110B chip under the Kepler architecture, while the Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip under Maxwell 2.0. The TITAN Z is a GeForce 700 generation part, whereas the Quadro belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. Transistor counts differ: 7,080 million versus 5,200 million. Die size differs: 561 mm² versus 398 mm². Transistor density is higher on the Quadro at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clock speeds are higher on the Quadro: base 975 MHz versus 705 MHz, boost 1013 MHz versus 876 MHz. Memory clock is higher on the TITAN Z: 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory size is 6 GB versus 4 GB, with bus widths of 384-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth is 336.0 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. Shading units are 2,880 versus 1,280. TMUs are 240 versus 80. ROPs are 48 versus 64. Pixel rate is 52.56 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 210.2 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. FP32 is 5.046 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS.

Power specifications are dramatically different. The TITAN Z has a TDP of 375 W, is triple-slot, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and lists a 750 W suggested PSU. The Quadro M4000M has a TDP of 100 W, is an MXM module, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. Physical dimensions are only recorded for the TITAN Z: 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 62 mm width. The Quadro’s dimensions are not recorded in the database. Display outputs differ: the TITAN Z has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro is listed as “Portable Device Dependent.” Release dates differ by over a year: the TITAN Z launched on 2014-05-27, the Quadro on 2015-08-17. The TITAN Z has a recorded launch MSRP of 2,999 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z, with an average score of 23,736, compared to 20,480 for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M.

Q: How much faster is the TITAN Z in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The TITAN Z scores 25,465 versus 19,989 for the Quadro M4000M, a 27.4% advantage.

Q: Is the Quadro M4000M competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Vulkan test the Quadro scores 20,971, only 4.9% behind the TITAN Z’s 22,006.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The TITAN Z has 336.0 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The Quadro M4000M has 160.4 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The TITAN Z has a TDP of 375 W, while the Quadro M4000M has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which card has more ROPs?

A: The Quadro M4000M, with 64 ROPs, compared to 48 ROPs on the TITAN Z.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z wins decisively in raw compute-heavy workloads. Its OpenCL score of 25,465 is 27.4% ahead, and its FP32 throughput of 5.046 TFLOPS more than doubles the Quadro’s 2.593 TFLOPS. The 336.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 160.4 GB/s gives it a massive advantage in memory-bound tasks. The larger 6 GB frame buffer also helps with large datasets that exceed the Quadro’s 4 GB capacity. The TITAN Z’s average score of 23,736 places it in the 69th percentile, and it trades blows with modern GPUs like the AMD Radeon RX 9070 (0.6% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S (1.4% lower). Any workload that stresses compute, bandwidth, or large memory allocations will favor the TITAN Z.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins in efficiency and modern API support. Its 100 W TDP is a fraction of the TITAN Z’s 375 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for mobile or compact systems. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the TITAN Z’s Vulkan 1.2.175, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is a higher feature level than the TITAN Z’s DirectX 12 (11_1). In the Vulkan benchmark, the Quadro comes within 4.9% of the TITAN Z, showing that for modern graphics APIs, the architectural efficiency of Maxwell narrows the gap significantly. The Quadro also has 64 ROPs versus 48, giving it a higher pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s. For rendering workloads that are ROP-bound or that leverage modern API features, the Quadro is the more efficient choice.

The data ultimately suggests a use-case split. The TITAN Z is for compute-first environments where power and space are not constraints. The Quadro M4000M is for graphics-centric, power-sensitive deployments where modern API support matters more than raw shader throughput. The TITAN Z’s 2-0 win record in head-to-head tests confirms its overall performance superiority, but the Quadro’s specific strengths in efficiency and API modernity make it the better fit for a distinct set of scenarios.