NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080, which wins both shared benchmark tests against the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. There are no tests in the database where the Quadro M4000M comes out ahead.

The largest margin comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The RTX 3080 scores 152,423, while the Quadro M4000M scores 19,989. This represents a 662.5% advantage for the RTX 3080, a massive generational leap in compute performance. The RTX 3080 delivers over seven times the raw OpenCL throughput of the older mobile workstation card. This is the single biggest differentiator between the two parts, and it reflects the enormous gap in shading hardware, memory bandwidth, and architecture efficiency.

The second shared test is Geekbench Vulkan. Here the RTX 3080 scores 33,620 against the Quadro M4000M's 20,971. The delta is 60.3% in favor of the RTX 3080. While this is a much smaller margin than the OpenCL result, it is still a commanding lead. The RTX 3080 is clearly the faster card in both compute and graphics API workloads that the database covers.

Context from the nearest rivals section reinforces this picture. The RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23,172, sitting at the 68th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals, such as the NVIDIA P106-100 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, are within 0.3% to 0.4% of its average score. The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 20,480 and sits at the 65th percentile. Its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and Intel Arc B570, are similarly tight, within 0.3% to 0.9%. The percentile gap of three points between the two cards is modest, but the head-to-head test results show a far wider gulf in the workloads where both were measured.

The RTX 3080 also has a much richer benchmark history in the database. It records results across ten tests, including multiple Passmark DirectX variants, Passmark G2D, Passmark G3D, and Passmark GPU compute. Its single-test scores range from 100 in Passmark DirectX 12 to 25,086 in Passmark G3D. The Quadro M4000M only has two recorded benchmark results, both in Geekbench. This means the comparison is limited to those two common tests, but within those, the RTX 3080 dominates without exception.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins decisively with a score of 152,423 against the Quadro M4000M's 19,989. That is a 662.5% difference in favor of the RTX 3080.

Q: Is the Quadro M4000M competitive in Vulkan performance?

A: No. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3080 scores 33,620, while the Quadro M4000M scores 20,971. The RTX 3080 leads by 60.3%, a substantial margin that leaves the Quadro well behind.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3080 has an average benchmark score of 23,172, placing it at the 68th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M4000M averages 20,480, which places it at the 65th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the RTX 3080 in the database?

A: The RTX 3080's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA P106-100 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, both with an average score of 23,249 and 23,250 respectively, each within 0.3% of the RTX 3080's average. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M and AMD Radeon R9 M290X are also close, at 0.4% behind.

Q: Does the Quadro M4000M have any benchmark where it beats the RTX 3080?

A: No. In the two tests where both cards have recorded scores, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3080 wins both. The database shows zero wins for the Quadro M4000M in head-to-head comparisons.

Q: How many shading units does each card have?

A: The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, while the Quadro M4000M has 1,280 shading units. This difference in execution resources helps explain the large performance gap in compute workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different NVIDIA architecture generations. The RTX 3080 is built on the Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The Quadro M4000M uses the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone, 8 nm versus 28 nm, explains a substantial portion of the efficiency and performance gap.

Transistor counts underline the scale difference. The GA102 packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The GM204 contains only 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3080 has more than five times the transistor count and more than three times the density of the Quadro M4000M.

The RTX 3080 introduces hardware features that the Quadro M4000M entirely lacks. The RTX 3080 has 68 ray tracing cores and 272 tensor cores. The Quadro M4000M has neither, as its Maxwell 2.0 architecture predates both dedicated ray tracing and tensor core hardware. This means the RTX 3080 can accelerate ray-traced rendering workloads and AI-based tasks, while the Quadro M4000M cannot take advantage of those features at all.

DirectX feature support also differs meaningfully. The RTX 3080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_2 is not listed, it only supports 12_1 per its API field). The RTX 3080 also has a higher memory clock in terms of effective data rate, with 19 Gbps effective GDDR6X memory versus 5 Gbps effective GDDR5 on the Quadro M4000M.

The shading resources are not remotely comparable. The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The Quadro M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RTX 3080 also delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Quadro M4000M reports no FP16 capability in the database.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The RTX 3080 has 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3080 offers more than double the capacity and nearly five times the bandwidth.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The RTX 3080 has a base clock of 1440 MHz and a boost clock of 1710 MHz. The Quadro M4000M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost clock of 1013 MHz. The memory clock also differs, with the RTX 3080 running at 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective and the Quadro M4000M at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective.

Power requirements are on completely different scales. The RTX 3080 has a TDP of 320 W, uses a dual-slot cooler layout, requires a single 12-pin power connector, and needs a suggested 700 W power supply. The Quadro M4000M has a TDP of 100 W, comes as an MXM module, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The RTX 3080 is 220 W higher in TDP.

The bus interface also differs. The RTX 3080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro M4000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are another contrast: the RTX 3080 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro M4000M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its mobile MXM form factor.

Physical dimensions are only available for the RTX 3080, which measures 285 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Quadro M4000M has no recorded dimensions in the database. The RTX 3080 has a launch MSRP of 699 USD; no launch MSRP is listed for the Quadro M4000M.

The release timeline is also far apart. The RTX 3080 was released on 2020-08-31, while the Quadro M4000M was released on 2015-08-17. Both are now end-of-life products. The RTX 3080 belongs to the GeForce 30-series with a predecessor in GeForce 20 and a successor in GeForce 40. The Quadro M4000M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, with a predecessor in Quadro Kepler-M and a successor in Quadro Pascal-M.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3080 wins in every measured category. In raw compute throughput, its FP32 rating of 29.77 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro M4000M's 2.593 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 465.1 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 164.2 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s. Every recorded performance metric favors the RTX 3080.

The RTX 3080 is also the only card of the two with modern feature support. It has ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. It uses GDDR6X memory with 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is essential for high-resolution textures and compute-heavy workloads. Its PCIe 4.0 interface doubles the bandwidth of the Quadro M4000M's PCIe 3.0 link.

The Quadro M4000M does have some advantages in the database, though they are not performance-related. Its TDP is 100 W, which is dramatically lower than the RTX 3080's 320 W. It is an MXM module, which means it is designed for mobile workstation chassis that require compact, modular GPU boards. It requires no external power connectors, whereas the RTX 3080 needs a 12-pin connector and a 700 W suggested power supply. For a system builder constrained by power or physical space, the Quadro M4000M is the more practical fit, but that comes with a massive performance penalty.

In terms of benchmark wins, the database records 2 wins for the RTX 3080 and 0 for the Quadro M4000M. The RTX 3080's average benchmark score of 23,172 is 13.1% higher than the Quadro M4000M's 20,480. The percentile ranking also favors the RTX 3080, at 68 versus 65.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 is the superior card in nearly every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average benchmark score, a higher percentile ranking, more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, and far higher compute rates. Anyone choosing between these two for performance should select the RTX 3080 without hesitation.

The Quadro M4000M is not competitive in raw performance. Its only advantages are lower power consumption, a smaller MXM form factor, and no external power requirement. These are meaningful for specific mobile workstation builds, but they do not offset the 662.5% OpenCL deficit and 60.3% Vulkan deficit. The RTX 3080 also brings ray tracing and tensor cores, features the Quadro M4000M does not support at all.

The RTX 3080 is the clear choice for users who prioritize compute performance, modern API support, or high-bandwidth memory. The Quadro M4000M is the choice only for systems that absolutely require an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, and where the workload is light enough that its 4 GB of GDDR5 and 2.593 TFLOPS of FP32 are sufficient. For everything else, the RTX 3080 is the definitive winner according to the recorded data.