NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are both Fermi-era professional GPUs, but they target fundamentally different platforms—one is a mobile MXM module, the other a desktop single-slot card. While they share an architecture and memory configuration, benchmark results and specifications reveal distinct identities where the mobile part edges out its desktop sibling in raw compute performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark in the data pack is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a clear verdict. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points. This gives the mobile part a 4.7% advantage, marking the Quadro 4000M as the winner of the only head-to-head comparison available. In terms of absolute performance, the 232-point gap is modest but consistent across the board, suggesting the Quadro 4000M holds a genuine edge in general-purpose compute workloads rather than a statistical fluke.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the Quadro 4000M’s score of 5,211 places it 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161). It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284) by 1.4% but leads the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154) by 1.1%. These deltas are tight, indicating the Quadro 4000M sits squarely in a competitive mid-range cluster for its era. On the desktop side, the Quadro 4000’s score of 4,979 puts it 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970)—a peculiar comparison given the generational gap—and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998). It also trails the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018) by 0.8% but beats the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4,931) by 1%.

What stands out is that the Quadro 4000M, despite being a mobile component with lower power limits, outperforms the desktop Quadro 4000 in compute. The 4.7% delta may not be dramatic, but it flips the typical expectation that desktop parts outmuscle their laptop counterparts. For OpenCL workloads—which often scale with shading units and memory bandwidth—the Quadro 4000M’s higher shading unit count likely compensates for any clock or thermal disadvantages.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000M wins the only benchmark tested, making it the default choice for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration. Its 336 shading units and 56 texture mapping units (TMUs) provide a wider parallel execution footprint, which explains its 638.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS. In scenarios where GPGPU throughput matters—such as rendering, simulation, or scientific calculations—the data points squarely to the Quadro 4000M.

The Quadro 4000, despite losing the compute benchmark, has its own strengths. Its pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s exceeds the Quadro 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate-bound performance in tasks that stress rasterization. It also offers higher memory bandwidth at 89.86 GB/s compared to 80.00 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-sensitive applications even if raw compute lags. Additionally, the Quadro 4000 is a desktop card with dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), making it a practical choice for fixed workstations where the Quadro 4000M’s portable-dependent outputs would be a limitation.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, the Quadro 4000M is the clear winner. For those needing higher pixel fill rates, greater memory bandwidth, or a conventional desktop form factor with standard display connectivity, the Quadro 4000 holds advantages that the benchmark alone does not capture.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process, with an identical transistor density of 5.9M per square millimeter. However, the underlying chips differ substantially. The Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip, which packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, a larger and more complex design with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. This means the GF100 has roughly 59% more transistors and a 59% larger die area, yet the Quadro 4000M still manages to outperform it in compute—evidence of the GF104’s more efficient execution configuration.

The shading unit counts tell the story. The Quadro 4000M features 336 shading units and 56 TMUs, while the Quadro 4000 has only 256 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs. This allocation suggests the GF104 was designed with a higher ratio of compute to rasterization resources, while the GF100 leaned more toward geometry and fill-rate throughput. The Quadro 4000M’s texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s is nearly double the Quadro 4000’s 15.20 GTexel/s, reinforcing its compute-oriented bias. In contrast, the Quadro 4000’s pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s edges out the Quadro 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s, showing its strength in pixel processing.

Neither GPU includes RT cores or tensor cores, as both predate ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware. They also share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support listed.

Specification Differences

The most obvious divergence is form factor. The Quadro 4000M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0) and no power connectors, drawing a TDP of 100 W. The Quadro 4000 is a Single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, using a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. It requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and has a higher TDP of 142 W, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Memory clocks differ, with the Quadro 4000M running at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro 4000’s 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). This yields bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s for the mobile part and 89.86 GB/s for the desktop part, despite both having 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro 4000M’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop integration, while the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

Release dates also separate them: the Quadro 4000M launched on February 21, 2011, while the Quadro 4000 came earlier on November 1, 2010. The Quadro 4000M’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The Quadro 4000’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, with the Quadro Kepler as its successor. Both are end-of-life products, and only the Quadro 4000 has a listed launch MSRP of 1,199 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979. The Quadro 4000M leads by 4.7%.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M have more shading units than the Quadro 4000?

A: Yes, the Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units and 56 TMUs, compared to the Quadro 4000’s 256 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 4000 offers 89.86 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000M provides 80.00 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses no power connectors, being an MXM Module. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s, exceeding the Quadro 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the display output options for each?

A: The Quadro 4000M’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop. The Quadro 4000 includes 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.