NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the definitive winner in this comparison, delivering a level of performance that the Quadro 4000 cannot approach. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result where the M4000 achieves a 284% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL, making it the clear choice for any modern workload. The Quadro 4000, while a capable product for its time, is severely limited by its older architecture and smaller memory pool, placing it in a much lower performance tier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior workstation graphics card. Its average benchmark score of 5467 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000’s average score of 4979 places it in the 29th percentile. This might seem like a small gap in percentile terms, but the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL result tells the real story, where the M4000 scores 19,118 versus the Quadro 4000’s 4,979 — a massive 284% advantage. For any user running OpenCL-accelerated tasks, the M4000 is not just better; it is in a completely different performance class.

The Quadro 4000, however, should not be entirely dismissed. It is an end-of-life product from the Fermi generation, and its specifications reflect that era. With only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 256-bit bus, it is suitable for legacy applications or basic 2D and light 3D workloads that do not demand high memory capacity or throughput. However, for any modern professional use case — 3D rendering, CAD, video editing, or GPU compute — the M4000 is the only rational choice. The M4000’s 8 GB memory, newer Maxwell architecture, and far higher compute throughput make it a more future-proof and capable solution.

In short, the M4000 wins on every measurable performance metric. The Quadro 4000 is only a viable option if the workload is extraordinarily simple and the hardware is being sourced at a very low cost, but even then, the performance gap is so large that it would struggle to keep up.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the clear winner across all benchmark categories. In the single head-to-head test available, Geekbench OpenCL, the M4000 scores 19,118 against the Quadro 4000’s 4,979. This result indicates a dominant performance in general-purpose GPU compute tasks, which is a critical workload for professionals in fields like scientific simulation, data analysis, and video encoding. The M4000 also shows strong results in other benchmark suites, including a Passmark G3D score of 6680 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2660, demonstrating well-rounded performance across both graphics and compute workloads.

The Quadro 4000 has no benchmark wins in this dataset. Its only recorded benchmark is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 4,979, which is significantly lower than the M4000’s score. In terms of raw specifications, the Quadro 4000 does have a lower power draw of 142 W compared to the M4000’s 120 W, but this is not a performance win. The Quadro 4000’s strengths are limited to its compatibility with older software stacks, as it supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but it lacks Vulkan support entirely. For users with legacy applications that require the Fermi architecture, the Quadro 4000 is the only option, but this is a compatibility niche rather than a performance advantage.

The M4000 wins in every scenario where performance matters. It has higher pixel rate (49.47 GPixel/s vs 7.60 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (80.39 GTexel/s vs 15.20 GTexel/s), and far higher FP32 compute (2.573 TFLOPS vs 486.4 GFLOPS). These numbers translate to real-world wins in rendering, simulation, and any GPU-accelerated task.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two cards is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro 4000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip on a 40 nm process. This process difference is significant: the M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M / mm², while the Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors on a larger 529 mm² die, giving a much lower density of 5.9M / mm².

The M4000’s Maxwell architecture is far more efficient and powerful. It features 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro 4000, by contrast, has only 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This disparity in core counts directly explains the M4000’s massive performance lead. The memory subsystem also differs fundamentally: the M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s. The Quadro 4000 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) on the same 256-bit bus, resulting in a much lower bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s.

API support also diverges. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. This makes the M4000 more compatible with modern applications that rely on Vulkan for cross-platform rendering. Both cards are single-slot designs with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W, but the M4000 has a lower TDP of 120 W compared to the Quadro 4000’s 142 W, despite being significantly faster. The M4000 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro 4000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the M4000 scores 19,118 versus the Quadro 4000’s 4,979, a 284% difference. The M4000’s average benchmark score is 5467, while the Quadro 4000 averages 4979.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000 have any performance advantages?

A: No. The Quadro 4000 does not win any benchmark in the data. It has a higher TDP of 142 W compared to the M4000’s 120 W, but this is a disadvantage, not a performance benefit.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit memory bus.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The M4000 is more power-efficient. It has a lower TDP of 120 W while delivering far higher performance. The Quadro 4000 consumes 142 W and is significantly slower.

Q: Is the Quadro 4000 compatible with modern APIs?

A: Partially. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but it has no Vulkan support. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the release timeline for these cards?

A: The Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01, while the M4000 was released later on 2015-06-28. Both are now end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000. The M4000 scores 19,118 points, while the Quadro 4000 manages only 4,979 points. This represents a delta of 284% in favor of the M4000. This benchmark measures general-purpose compute performance on the GPU, which is a crucial metric for professional workloads like rendering, simulation, and data processing.

The magnitude of this win cannot be overstated. A 284% advantage means the M4000 is nearly four times faster in this test. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in capability. The M4000’s superior architecture, with 1,664 shading units versus 256, and its higher memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s versus 89.86 GB/s, are the primary drivers of this result.

While other benchmark scores are not directly compared head-to-head, the individual scores reinforce the M4000’s dominance. The M4000 achieves a Passmark G3D score of 6680 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2660, alongside a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24640. These numbers, combined with the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL result, paint a clear picture: the M4000 is vastly superior in both graphics and compute tasks.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two cards, focusing only on fields where they diverge.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | GM204 | GF100 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 89.86 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 256 |

| TMUs | 104 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 2.573 TFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 142 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2010-11-01 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 1,199 USD |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | Quadro Fermi (x000) |