NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M are two mobile workstation GPUs separated by a full architectural generation, and the recorded data shows the Kepler-based K4000M clearly ahead in compute performance. Both cards share the same 100 W thermal design power and the same MXM module format, so the comparison comes down to how much performance each delivers within that identical envelope. This analysis walks through the benchmark result, the architectural shift from Fermi to Kepler, and the specification differences that matter in practice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison point between these two cards, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K4000M scores 5986 against 5211 for the Quadro 4000M, a 14.9 percent advantage for the Kepler card. That is a substantial gap for parts that sit in the same product family and draw the same power. The K4000M delivers nearly fifteen percent more compute throughput while consuming no more energy, which is the practical payoff of the generational jump from Fermi to Kepler.

Context from the wider database reinforces how each card positions against its contemporaries. The K4000M sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 4000M sits in the 30th percentile. Neither is a high-end part by modern standards, but the K4000M is meaningfully further up the curve. The K4000M's score of 5986 places it in a cluster with cards like the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996, all effectively indistinguishable in average score. The Quadro 4000M's 5211, by contrast, aligns with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284. In other words, the K4000M keeps company with desktop Quadro parts, while the 4000M rubs shoulders with mainstream mobile and entry-level notebook graphics.

The head-to-head record in the database stands at one win for the K4000M and zero for the Quadro 4000M. There is no benchmark in the recorded data where the older Fermi card comes out ahead. For a buyer choosing between these two in a mobile workstation, the compute data points in one direction only.

The Verdict

The Quadro K4000M is the pick in every scenario the database supports. It wins the only recorded benchmark, it holds a higher percentile ranking against all GPUs, and it does so at the same 100 W TDP. If both cards are options for the same MXM-B (3.0) slot, there is no measured trade-off to weigh: the K4000M is faster, has twice the memory capacity, offers more memory bandwidth, and supports a newer API feature set including Vulkan.

The Quadro 4000M makes sense only in contexts where the data does not reach, such as maintaining an existing system built around a Fermi-era platform. On pure measurements, though, the K4000M dominates. Its double shader count, nearly doubled texture throughput, and doubled memory capacity translate directly into the 14.9 percent OpenCL win recorded in the database, and the architectural advantages suggest that gap would hold or widen in other professional workloads.

Both cards are listed as end-of-life, so neither is a current purchase target. Between them, however, the K4000M is unambiguously the stronger part.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent consecutive mobile workstation generations from NVIDIA. The Quadro 4000M is built on the GF104 chip, a Fermi-architecture part fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process, and it belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation released in February 2011. Its predecessor line was Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor generation was Quadro Kepler-M.

The Quadro K4000M is that successor. It uses the GK104 chip, the Kepler architecture, and TSMC's 28 nm process, released at the end of May 2012 as part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. The process shrink is significant in the data: the GK104 die packs 3,540 million transistors into 294 mm², giving a density of 12.0M transistors per square millimeter. The GF104 die carries 1,950 million transistors across a larger 332 mm², at 5.9M per square millimeter. That is roughly double the transistor density on a physically smaller die, the classic signature of a successful node transition, and it is why the K4000M can field far more hardware at the same 100 W power budget.

The functional differences follow from that transistor budget. The K4000M has 960 shading units and 80 texture mapping units, against 336 shading units and 56 TMUs on the 4000M. Both have 32 render output units, so simple pixel-pipeline-bound workloads see less divergence, but compute and texture-heavy tasks strongly favor Kepler. The K4000M's FP32 throughput is 1,153.9 GFLOPS, while the 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS, nearly an 81 percent advantage in raw compute before clock behavior even enters the picture. Texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s, and pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s.

The feature sets also differ. The K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 4000M lists only DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. For OpenCL-driven professional applications both cards work, but any workflow that depends on Vulkan support rules out the Fermi card immediately. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores; those technologies came much later and are absent from both records.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet breaks down cleanly into what is shared and what is not. Both are NVIDIA MXM modules with no external power connectors, a 100 W TDP, an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, display outputs listed as portable device dependent, and GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The differences are where the K4000M pulls away:

• GPU chip and architecture: GK104 with Kepler versus GF104 with Fermi.
• Process node: 28 nm versus 40 nm, both from TSMC.
• Transistors and die: 3,540 million on 294 mm² versus 1,950 million on 332 mm².
• Core clock: the K4000M runs at 601 MHz base and boost; no core clocks are recorded for the 4000M.
• Memory clock: 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).
• Memory capacity: 4 GB versus 2 GB.
• Memory bandwidth: 89.60 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s.
• Shading units: 960 versus 336.
• TMUs: 80 versus 56.
• ROPs: 32 on both, the one area of parity.
• FP32 throughput: 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS.
• Pixel rate: 12.02 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 48.08 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s.
• API support: Vulkan 1.2.175 on the K4000M only.
• Release timing: 2012 for the K4000M versus early 2011 for the 4000M.

The memory capacity difference deserves emphasis. Doubling from 2 GB to 4 GB matters for professional datasets, scene complexity, and multi-display work, and it is a hard limit rather than a performance gradient. A workload that exceeds 2 GB does not run slower on the Quadro 4000M, it fails or spills.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The Quadro K4000M. It scored 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5211 for the Quadro 4000M, a 14.9 percent advantage, and it holds the higher database percentile at 34 versus 30.

Q: Do the two cards have different power requirements?

A: No. Both are recorded at a 100 W TDP in MXM module format with no external power connectors, so the K4000M's performance lead comes at no additional power cost.

Q: How much more raw compute does the K4000M have?

A: Its FP32 throughput is 1,153.9 GFLOPS against 638.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000M, roughly an 81 percent advantage in theoretical compute, driven by 960 shading units versus 336.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: No. The K4000M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support recorded. Both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do they compare in memory?

A: The K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 89.60 GB/s. The 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus at 80.00 GB/s. Capacity is doubled on the Kepler card.

Q: Are either of these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Quadro K4000M wins everything. It takes the only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 14.9 percent. It wins on memory capacity, memory bandwidth, shading resources, texture throughput, pixel throughput, theoretical FP32 compute, transistor density, and API support with Vulkan. It matches the Quadro 4000M on TDP, bus interface, ROP count, and module format, so there is no dimension in the database where the Fermi card holds an advantage.

The Quadro 4000M's only claim is historical: it fits Fermi-generation systems where a Kepler module is not an option. For any workload in the measured record, GPU compute, 3D texture work, or memory-constrained professional applications, the K4000M is the card that delivers. Buyers maintaining legacy hardware may have no choice, but where both are available, the database leaves no ambiguity: the Kepler part is faster, better equipped, and no more power hungry.