NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm. The RTX 2070 dominates the shared compute tests, but the M4000M’s standing in the overall percentile rankings shows it was a strong performer in its own right. The data reveals a clear winner in raw performance, yet the architectural context explains why each card found its niche.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous in favor of the GeForce RTX 2070, which wins both available benchmark comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 2070 scores 79,966 points against the Quadro M4000M’s 19,989 points, a staggering 75% advantage. The deltaPct of -75 indicates the M4000M trails by exactly that margin, meaning the RTX 2070 delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute throughput. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive generational leap that dwarfs any architectural similarities between the two.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower gap. The RTX 2070 posts 82,521 points, while the M4000M manages 20,971 points, resulting in a -74.6% deltaPct for the older card. Vulkan’s lower-level API overhead tends to favor newer architectures with better driver optimization, and the Turing-based RTX 2070 clearly benefits. The M4000M’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while capable, simply cannot match the raw throughput of a card released three years later with more than double the shading units.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RTX 2070’s average benchmark score is 18,789, which sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K80 (18,866, -0.4% deltaPct) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, +0.6%), indicating the RTX 2070 is tightly clustered with professional-grade compute cards. The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, achieves an average score of 20,480, placing it at the 65th percentile—ironically higher than the RTX 2070’s percentile despite losing the direct comparison. This happens because the M4000M’s nearest rivals—the RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534, -0.3%), Intel Arc B570 (20,556, -0.4%), and Intel Arc A750 (20,582, -0.5%)—are all modern, high-performance parts. The M4000M’s average is buoyed by its two strong Geekbench scores, while the RTX 2070’s average is dragged down by lower scores in Passmark tests like DirectX 9 (211) and DirectX 10 (111).

The RTX 2070’s Passmark results are mixed, with a strong G3D score of 16,094 and a GPU compute score of 6,411, but weaker legacy API scores. Its DirectX 12 score of 60 is notably low, likely reflecting driver overhead or test methodology rather than raw capability. The M4000M has no Passmark entries in the data, so direct comparison in those tests is impossible. What the head-to-head data establishes is that in modern compute APIs (OpenCL and Vulkan), the RTX 2070 is categorically faster, with the M4000M trailing by roughly three-quarters in both cases.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 2070 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 2070 scores 79,966 compared to the M4000M’s 19,989, a 75% advantage. The M4000M’s deltaPct of -75 confirms it delivers only a quarter of the RTX 2070’s OpenCL performance.

Q: Does the Quadro M4000M have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the RTX 2070 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record. The M4000M has zero wins in the provided head-to-head data.

Q: Which card has a higher overall percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro M4000M sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 2070 is at the 63rd percentile. This is despite the RTX 2070 being significantly faster in direct comparisons, because the M4000M’s average score (20,480) is higher than the RTX 2070’s (18,789), due to differences in the benchmark sets used.

Q: What is the RTX 2070’s average benchmark score and its closest rival?

A: The RTX 2070’s average benchmark score is 18,789. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K80 with an average score of 18,866, which is 0.4% higher (deltaPct of -0.4 for the RTX 2070).

Q: How does the M4000M compare to the RTX 3070 Mobile in average score?

A: The RTX 3070 Mobile has an average score of 20,534, which is 0.3% higher than the M4000M’s 20,480. The deltaPct of -0.3 indicates the M4000M trails the mobile RTX 3070 by a very slim margin.

Q: What is the RTX 2070’s best and worst Passmark score?

A: Its best Passmark score is the G3D test at 16,094, while its worst is the DirectX 12 test at 60. The G2D score is 819, and GPU compute is 6,411.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, rooted in a three-year design evolution. The Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The GeForce RTX 2070, in contrast, uses the TU106 chip on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. Turing doubles the transistor count to 10,800 million, though the die only grows to 445 mm², resulting in a much higher density of 24.3M per mm².

Core configuration differences are equally stark. The M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The RTX 2070 nearly doubles the shading units to 2,304, increases TMUs to 144, and keeps ROPs at 64. More importantly, the RTX 2070 introduces dedicated ray tracing (RT) cores—36 of them—and 288 tensor cores for AI acceleration. These are entirely absent from the Maxwell-based M4000M, which predates the ray tracing era. The FP32 compute performance reflects this: the RTX 2070 delivers 7.465 TFLOPS versus the M4000M’s 2.593 TFLOPS, a 2.9x advantage. The RTX 2070 also supports FP16 at 14.93 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the M4000M has no FP16 data.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. The M4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 2070 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but with a much higher effective speed of 14 Gbps, yielding 448.0 GB/s—nearly three times the bandwidth. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the RTX 2070 hits 103.7 GPixel/s and 233.3 GTexel/s, versus 64.83 GPixel/s and 81.04 GTexel/s for the M4000M. The RTX 2070 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), a key feature gap for modern titles.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification, though some fields remain identical. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface and have the same 256-bit memory bus width. Both feature 64 ROPs and support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The critical differences begin with the process node: 28 nm for the M4000M versus 12 nm for the RTX 2070. Transistor count is 5,200 million versus 10,800 million, and die size is 398 mm² versus 445 mm². Transistor density is 13.1M/mm² versus 24.3M/mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The M4000M runs at a 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost, while the RTX 2070 boosts from 1410 MHz to 1620 MHz. Memory clocks are 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M4000M and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RTX 2070. Memory capacity is 4 GB GDDR5 for the M4000M versus 8 GB GDDR6 for the RTX 2070, with bandwidth at 160.4 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s. The M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and no RT or tensor cores; the RTX 2070 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 36 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. Power consumption is 100 W for the M4000M versus 175 W for the RTX 2070, with the former using an MXM module slot and no power connectors, while the latter is dual-slot with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. Display outputs differ: the M4000M is portable-device dependent, while the RTX 2070 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. The RTX 2070’s dimensions are 229 mm (9 inches) long, 113 mm (4.4 inches) high, and 35 mm (1.4 inches) wide.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2070 is the clear winner in raw compute performance, taking both head-to-head benchmarks with margins exceeding 74%. Its 7.465 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 448 GB/s bandwidth, and 8 GB VRAM make it suitable for 1440p gaming, ray-traced workloads, and content creation that leverages tensor cores for DLSS or AI acceleration. The 36 RT cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate position it for modern titles, while the dual-slot design and 1x 8-pin power connector indicate a desktop-oriented card meant for serious workloads. Its Passmark G3D score of 16,094 reinforces its strength in general 3D rendering.

The Quadro M4000M, despite losing the head-to-head, still holds value in specific scenarios. Its 100 W TDP and MXM module form factor make it ideal for mobile workstations where power efficiency and compactness are critical. The 65th percentile ranking and average score of 20,480 show it outperforms many desktop GPUs in compute benchmarks, and its nearest rivals include the RTX 3070 Mobile and Intel Arc B570, indicating it remains competitive against newer mobile parts. For professional applications that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan compute—such as CAD, scientific simulation, or rendering—the M4000M offers respectable performance in a low-power package. Its end-of-life status and 4 GB VRAM limit its longevity, but for legacy workstation deployments, it remains a capable option.

In short, the RTX 2070 wins on every performance metric measured, but the M4000M wins on power efficiency and mobility. The choice hinges on whether the user needs maximum compute power (RTX 2070) or a low-profile, low-power solution for portable workstations (M4000M). The data does not support the M4000M as a competitor in raw speed, but it does validate it as a competent professional tool within its thermal and physical constraints.