NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M serve different professional mobile and desktop segments, and the data clearly separates them. The Quadro 4000 is the stronger compute performer, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4979 against the K3000M's 4241, a 17.4% advantage. The Quadro 4000 also sits in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the K3000M sits in the 25th percentile, indicating the former has slightly broader headroom relative to the full database.

The Quadro 4000 is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, fixed desktop installation, and a wider display output configuration. Its 142 W TDP, however, demands a dedicated power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, making it unsuitable for compact or low-power builds. The K3000M, by contrast, is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, making it the only realistic choice for notebook upgrades or OEM mobile workstations where thermal and power envelopes are tight.

For users constrained to a laptop chassis, the K3000M is the only option that fits. For desktop users with power headroom, the Quadro 4000 delivers measurably better compute results. Neither card is current, as both are end-of-life, but the data shows the Quadro 4000 as the performance leader in the single benchmark recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and manufacturing nodes. The Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Quadro K3000M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, also from TSMC, but on a 28 nm process. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0M per mm². The K3000M therefore crams more transistors into a smaller physical area, a direct consequence of the newer, denser process node.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K3000M more than doubles the shading unit count to 576, and increases TMUs to 48 while keeping 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the Quadro 4000 achieves a higher pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s versus the K3000M's 7.848 GPixel/s, a marginal difference. The texture rate tells a different story: the K3000M reaches 31.39 GTexel/s, more than double the Quadro 4000's 15.20 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 throughput, the K3000M's 753.4 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS by roughly 55%, yet the OpenCL benchmark result favors the older card, suggesting that real-world compute performance is not solely a function of peak FLOPS.

Memory subsystems are nearly identical. Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro 4000 has a marginal bandwidth advantage at 89.86 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s for the K3000M. Memory clock speeds are effectively the same at 2.8 Gbps effective. The K3000M's base and boost clocks are both 654 MHz, while the Quadro 4000 does not list base or boost clocks in the database.

Interface and form factor differences are stark. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card, 241 mm long, 111 mm high, and 20 mm wide, with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The K3000M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with no standard dimensions listed, no power connectors, and display outputs that depend on the host portable device. The Quadro 4000 requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU, while the K3000M draws power through the MXM slot. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K3000M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support; the Quadro 4000 lists no Vulkan capability.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data records a single test, Geekbench OpenCL, and the Quadro 4000 wins it outright. Its 4979 score beats the K3000M's 4241 by 17.4%. This is the only head-to-head metric available, and it favors the desktop card in pure compute. The Quadro 4000 also holds a higher percentile rank (29th versus 25th), meaning it outperforms a slightly larger share of the entire GPU database.

The K3000M wins in structural efficiency. It delivers 75.5% of the Quadro 4000's OpenCL score (4241 versus 4979) while consuming roughly half the power (75 W versus 142 W). It also fits in mobile chassis, which the Quadro 4000 cannot. In terms of architectural features, the K3000M offers Vulkan support and a higher transistor density, but these do not translate into a benchmark win.

For use-case segmentation: the Quadro 4000 suits fixed workstations where compute throughput is the priority and power draw is acceptable. The K3000M suits mobile workstations where the MXM form factor is mandatory and the thermal envelope is limited. Neither card wins on modern API support beyond what the K3000M's Vulkan 1.2.175 adds.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979, which is 17.4% higher than the Quadro K3000M's 4241.

Q: Can the Quadro K3000M be installed in a desktop PCIe slot?

A: No, the K3000M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with no PCIe interface; it is designed for portable devices.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K3000M adds Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s for the Quadro 4000 and 89.60 GB/s for the K3000M.

Q: Which card has a lower TDP?

A: The K3000M has a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 has a 142 W TDP and requires a 6-pin connector.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The K3000M's 28 nm process yields 12.0M transistors per mm², while the Quadro 4000's 40 nm process yields 5.9M per mm².

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it decisively favors the Quadro 4000. The desktop card scores 4979, while the mobile K3000M scores 4241. That is a delta of 17.4%, a substantial margin in compute workloads. The Quadro 4000's nearest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the Quadro 4000 is essentially tied with that integrated GPU. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB sits at 4970, just 0.2% behind the Quadro 4000. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 and R7 M360 are 0.8% and 1% behind, respectively.

The K3000M's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295, which is 1.3% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, 1% ahead. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268, 0.6% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193, 1.2% behind the K3000M. These proximity values show that the K3000M's score of 4241 places it in a cluster of older and entry-level GPUs, while the Quadro 4000's 4979 touches a much higher performance tier, nearly matching a modern RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB in this specific OpenCL test.

The delta between the two Quadro cards (17.4%) is larger than any delta to their nearest rivals, which range from -1.3% to 1.2%. This means the gap between the two reviewed cards is more significant than the gap between either card and its closest competitors in the database. The Quadro 4000's win is therefore not a marginal one; it represents a clear tier separation in compute capability.

Texture throughput further illustrates the architectural divergence. The K3000M's 31.39 GTexel/s doubles the Quadro 4000's 15.20 GTexel/s, yet the older card wins the OpenCL test. This suggests that the benchmark workload favors the Fermi architecture's scheduling or memory characteristics over the Kepler card's higher peak texture rate. The FP32 numbers reinforce this: 753.4 GFLOPS for the K3000M versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000, a 55% advantage for the newer card, but again the benchmark flips the expected order.

Pixel rates are nearly identical at 7.600 GPixel/s and 7.848 GPixel/s, a 3.3% difference in favor of the K3000M. Shader counts differ by a factor of 2.25 (576 versus 256), but the OpenCL score gap is only 17.4%. The data indicates that raw shader count and FLOPs do not predict the recorded compute result. The Quadro 4000's 142 W TDP versus the K3000M's 75 W TDP suggests that the desktop card uses more power to achieve its benchmark lead, but the performance-per-watt ratio still favors the K3000M in terms of efficiency: 56.5 points per watt versus 35.1 points per watt for the Quadro 4000.

The Quadro 4000's release date is November 2010, and the K3000M's is May 2012, nearly 19 months later. Despite the later release and denser process, the K3000M does not overtake the earlier card in the single recorded benchmark. The production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro 4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, while the K3000M has no recorded launch MSRP. The successor relationships also differ: the Quadro 4000's predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler, while the K3000M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

In summary, the head-to-head record shows one clear winner in compute, but the architectural tables show the K3000M leading in shader count, texture rate, FP32 throughput, transistor density, and power efficiency. The benchmark result, however, is the only metric that determines the recorded win, and it goes to the Quadro 4000.