NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the Quadro K4000M represent two distant poles of NVIDIA’s hardware history, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The data paints a stark picture: one is an active, high-end desktop part aimed at modern workloads, while the other is an end-of-life mobile workstation component from the Kepler era. Their benchmark scores, however, tell a surprisingly nuanced story about what those numbers mean in different test environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards were not subjected to the same benchmark suite, so a direct score-to-score comparison relies on their respective average benchmark scores and percentile rankings. The GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER holds an average benchmark score of 6270, placing it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, scores an identical 6270, a delta of 0%. The Quadro K4000M, meanwhile, averages 5986, which lands it in the 34th percentile. Its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro W4100, scores 5987, a negligible 0% delta.

The raw difference between the two cards’ average scores is 284 points, or roughly 4.7%. This is a modest lead for the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER in a head-to-head sense, but the context is critical. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s score comes from a single test: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it posted 6269.5. The Quadro K4000M’s score comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where it achieved 5986. These are different workloads—the former is a modern, graphics-heavy DX12 test, while the latter is a compute-oriented API-agnostic benchmark.

Interpreting the deltas from the nearest rivals adds further color. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER sits within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon R7 M350, which scores 6327, and within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620, which scores 6282. The K4000M, by contrast, is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, +0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, -0.2%). The data suggests that in their own respective test pools, both cards are tightly clustered with their immediate peers, meaning neither is an outlier in performance. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is not dramatically faster than its nearest rivals, just as the K4000M is not dramatically slower than its own.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two is immense, and the specification data quantifies it clearly. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using the GB203 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 45,600 million transistors into a 378 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 120.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K4000M, in contrast, uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of just 12.0 million per square millimeter. That is a 10x difference in transistor density, which alone explains the massive capability gap.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER runs at a base of 2295 MHz and boosts to 2452 MHz. The K4000M is locked at 601 MHz for both base and boost. Memory technology also diverges sharply: the newer card uses 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the older card uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but only achieves 89.60 GB/s. That is a 10x improvement in bandwidth for the newer part.

Compute resources are equally lopsided. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores at all. The pixel rate for the newer card is 235.4 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s for the older one; texture rates are 686.6 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 43.94 TFLOPS for the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, while the K4000M manages 1,153.9 GFLOPS (roughly 1.15 TFLOPS)—a 38x difference. The newer card also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a feature entirely absent from the K4000M’s spec sheet.

Where Each One Wins

Given the data, the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER wins in every measurable performance category—raw compute, memory bandwidth, pixel throughput, and feature set. Its 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores make it suitable for ray-traced workloads and AI-accelerated tasks, neither of which the K4000M can handle. The 16 GB GDDR7 frame buffer is four times larger than the K4000M’s 4 GB GDDR5, which matters for high-resolution textures and large datasets.

The Quadro K4000M, however, has one clear advantage: power efficiency in a mobile context. Its TDP is 100 W, versus the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s 350 W. It also uses an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors, making it a drop-in upgrade for older laptops, whereas the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a 16-pin connector and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. For legacy systems or applications that only need basic DirectX 11_0 support, the K4000M remains functional. Its OpenGL 4.6 support matches the newer card, and it supports Vulkan 1.2.175, though the newer card supports Vulkan 1.4.

The benchmark data also hints at a potential niche for the K4000M: its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5986 is only 4.7% lower than the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score, despite the massive architectural disparity. This suggests that in compute-heavy, non-gaming workloads, the older card’s Kepler architecture holds up better than its gaming performance would imply, though the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s FP32 and FP16 numbers still dwarf it.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has an average benchmark score of 6270, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986. The newer card leads by 284 points, or roughly 4.7%.

Q: Are these cards comparable in terms of manufacturing process?

A: No. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER uses a 5 nm TSMC process with a transistor density of 120.6M / mm². The Quadro K4000M uses a 28 nm TSMC process with a density of 12.0M / mm².

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 70 RT cores, indicating ray tracing support. The Quadro K4000M has no RT cores listed, so it does not support hardware ray tracing.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER offers 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 16 GB of GDDR7. The Quadro K4000M offers 89.60 GB/s with 4 GB of GDDR5—a 10x difference in bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more suitable for a laptop?

A: The Quadro K4000M is an MXM Module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card with a 350 W TDP and a 16-pin power connector.

Q: What is the release date gap?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER was released on 2025-12-31, while the Quadro K4000M was released on 2012-05-31, a gap of over 13 years.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GB203 vs GK104
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 vs Kepler
• Process Node: 5 nm vs 28 nm
• Transistors: 45,600 million vs 3,540 million
• Die Size: 378 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 120.6M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 2295 MHz vs 601 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2452 MHz vs 601 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) vs 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 16 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR7 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bandwidth: 896.0 GB/s vs 89.60 GB/s
• Shading Units: 8960 vs 960
• TMUs: 280 vs 80
• ROPs: 96 vs 32
• RT Cores: 70 vs None
• Tensor Cores: 280 vs None
• Pixel Rate: 235.4 GPixel/s vs 12.02 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 686.6 GTexel/s vs 48.08 GTexel/s
• FP32: 43.94 TFLOPS vs 1,153.9 GFLOPS
• FP16: 43.94 TFLOPS (1:1) vs None
• TDP: 350 W vs 100 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs MXM Module
• Power Connectors: 1x 16-pin vs None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs 1.2.175
• Production Status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release Date: 2025-12-31 vs 2012-05-31

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for anyone building a modern desktop system: the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is the superior performer in every benchmarkable metric, from its 43.94 TFLOPS FP32 throughput to its 896.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. It also holds a higher percentile rank (36th vs 34th) and a higher average score (6270 vs 5986). Its active production status and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and ray tracing make it the only sensible choice for contemporary gaming, rendering, or AI workloads. Its launch MSRP is 749 USD, which is a single data point, not a value judgment.

The Quadro K4000M, conversely, is an end-of-life product with a 13-year-old architecture. Its 100 W TDP and MXM form factor make it relevant only for legacy mobile workstations where power constraints are paramount and modern software requirements are minimal. Its OpenCL score of 5986 shows it is not entirely obsolete for compute tasks, but its lack of RT cores, tensor cores, and FP16 support severely limits its utility. The verdict from the data is simple: the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is for users who need current-generation performance; the K4000M is for those maintaining or upgrading vintage portable systems where no other option fits.