NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5764 against the Quadro 4000M’s 5211. That is a 10.6% advantage for the 840M.

Q: How do these two compare in overall GPU percentile rankings?

A: The GeForce 840M sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M is at the 30th percentile. The 840M’s average benchmark score is 5322, and the Quadro 4000M’s is 5211.

Q: What memory technologies do these cards use?

A: The GeForce 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and larger die?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the GeForce 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro’s die is over four times larger.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GeForce 840M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The GeForce 840M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W. The Quadro consumes roughly three times the power.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce 840M and Quadro 4000M represent two very different generations of NVIDIA mobile graphics. The 840M is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 4000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, also made by TSMC but on a larger 40 nm process. This process gap is significant: the 840M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm², whereas the Quadro 4000M spreads 1,950 million transistors across a 332 mm² die at just 5.9 million per mm².

The shader configurations also diverge. The 840M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M has fewer shading units at 336, but more TMUs at 56 and more ROPs at 32. The Quadro’s wider memory interface — 256-bit versus 64-bit — gives it a massive bandwidth advantage, 80.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s, despite using GDDR5 at a lower effective clock of 2.5 Gbps compared to the 840M’s 2 Gbps DDR3.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The 840M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz, respectively. The Quadro 4000M has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The 840M’s higher clocks and newer architecture allow it to reach 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro 4000M manages 638.4 GFLOPS. Pixel fill rates follow a similar pattern: the 840M outputs 8.992 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 6.650 GPixel/s, though the Quadro leads in texture fill rate at 26.60 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Form factor and interface also separate the two. The 840M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and no power connectors. The Quadro 4000M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, also without power connectors. Both are end-of-life products, but the 840M launched in March 2014, three years after the Quadro 4000M’s February 2011 debut. The Quadro’s predecessor was the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M; the 840M’s predecessor was the GeForce 700M and its successor is the GeForce 900M.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 840M wins the compute benchmark head-to-head, and that is its clear strength. With a 10.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL over the Quadro 4000M, the 840M is the better choice for general-purpose compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration. Its higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS, combined with a much lower 33 W TDP, makes it the more efficient option for sustained compute tasks in thin-and-light laptops. The 840M also has Vulkan 1.4 support, which opens the door to modern cross-platform graphics APIs that the Quadro 4000M cannot use.

The Quadro 4000M, despite losing the compute test, has its own advantages rooted in memory and texture throughput. The 80.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth is five times that of the 840M, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and large data sets that exceed the 840M’s narrow 64-bit bus. The Quadro’s 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs give it a texture fill rate of 26.60 GTexel/s, 48% higher than the 840M’s 17.98 GTexel/s. For applications that are bandwidth-bound or rely heavily on texture sampling, the Quadro 4000M can be the more capable part despite its older Fermi architecture.

The production positioning matters, too. The Quadro line is traditionally aimed at professional and workstation use cases, with certified drivers and ISV support — though the data here does not quantify that. The 840M is a consumer GeForce part. If the workload is purely about raw OpenCL numbers, the 840M wins. If the workload involves massive textures or memory-intensive datasets, the Quadro’s bandwidth advantage is a legitimate counterpoint. The benchmark data only shows one shared test, so the Quadro’s wins in memory and texture throughput are based on specification differences, not measured results.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 336 |

| TMUs | 16 | 56 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 6.650 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 26.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 638.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | Quadro Kepler-M |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only one direct benchmark comparison in the data, but it is a telling one. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce 840M scores 5764 against the Quadro 4000M’s 5211. That is a 10.6% delta in favor of the 840M. The result aligns with the architectural gap: the 840M’s Maxwell design at 28 nm achieves 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Fermi-based Quadro 4000M tops out at 638.4 GFLOPS. The 840M is also operating at a base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, whereas the Quadro 4000M has no listed core clocks, which further explains the compute deficit.

The 840M’s win is not just about raw numbers. It also holds a small percentile edge over all GPUs, ranking at the 31st percentile versus the Quadro’s 30th. Its average benchmark score of 5322 is more than 100 points higher than the Quadro’s 5211. In the nearest-rival context, the 840M is 0.1% ahead of the GeForce 930A, 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980M, 0.7% ahead of the GeForce 940M, and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445. The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, 1.1% ahead of the Quadro K3100M, 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 760M, and 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M.

What the benchmark does not show is the memory story. The Quadro 4000M’s 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is five times the 840M’s 16.02 GB/s, and its texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s is 48% higher. In a purely OpenCL compute test, the 840M wins decisively. But the spec sheet suggests the Quadro would be competitive in scenarios that stress memory bandwidth or texture fetch rates, areas where the 840M’s 64-bit bus is a structural limitation. The data shows one victory for the 840M and none for the Quadro, but the specification differences leave room for workload-dependent outcomes that the single benchmark cannot capture.