NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only one direct head-to-head comparison between these two professional workstation GPUs, but the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points. That represents a 286.2% advantage for the P2000, meaning the newer card delivers nearly four times the raw compute throughput in this particular workload. For context, the Quadro 4000M's score of 5,211 places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro P2000 sits in the 35th percentile. The gap between these two cards is far larger than the percentile difference suggests, because the P2000 is clustered tightly among modern mainstream parts, while the 4000M sits in a much lower performance tier.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the P2000, it demonstrates substantial capability across legacy and modern APIs. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,956, with a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,933. In DirectX 9 workloads, it reaches 124, but this drops dramatically for newer APIs: 47 in DirectX 11, 34 in DirectX 10, and 28 in DirectX 12. The Vulkan score of 23,566 in Geekbench is the strongest result, suggesting the card is well optimized for modern graphics APIs. The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, has no recorded scores in the Passmark suite or in Vulkan, so its capabilities in those areas cannot be assessed from the database. Its only other data point, the Geekbench OpenCL score, puts it at 5,211, which is roughly on par with the average scores of its nearest rivals: the GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236, the Radeon R7 M260X at 5,161, the Quadro K3100M at 5,154, and the GeForce 940M at 5,284. The P2000's nearest rivals are notably different, including the GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0.5% slower), the RTX A400 at 6,078 (0.5% slower), the Radeon 760M at 6,019 (0.5% faster), and the Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001 (0.8% faster). The P2000's average benchmark score is 6,049, compared to the 4000M's 5,211, a 16% overall advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is fundamental and spans multiple generations. The P2000 is built on the Pascal architecture, specifically the GP106 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process by TSMC. The 4000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also by TSMC. This process node difference alone explains much of the performance disparity, as the P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a die size of 200 mm², yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The 4000M, in contrast, contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter, nearly four times lower.

The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The 4000M has only 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 94.72 GTexel/s for the P2000, versus 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s for the 4000M. In raw FP32 compute, the P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS, while the 4000M manages only 638.4 GFLOPS. The P2000 also supports FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio, which indicates heavily reduced throughput), a feature the 4000M lacks entirely. The generations explain this: the P2000 belongs to the Quadro Pascal family (Px000), while the 4000M is part of the Quadro Fermi-M generation (x000M). The P2000's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta, while the 4000M's predecessor is Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is Quadro Kepler-M.

Memory differences are equally stark. The P2000 comes with 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but despite the wider interface, its bandwidth is only 80.00 GB/s due to the much lower memory clock (625 MHz, or 2.5 Gbps effective, versus 1,752 MHz or 7 Gbps effective for the P2000). The P2000 also supports a higher DirectX version: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0) for the 4000M. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the P2000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 4000M has no Vulkan support recorded. The P2000 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the 4000M is an MXM module (MXM-B 3.0) with portable device dependent outputs. The P2000's TDP is 75 W, while the 4000M's TDP is 100 W, which is notable given the P2000's far higher performance. The database lists a suggested PSU of 250 W for the P2000, while no such recommendation exists for the 4000M. The P2000 is physically 196 mm long and 111 mm tall; the 4000M's dimensions are not recorded. Both are end-of-life products, but their release dates are far apart: the P2000 was released in February 2017, the 4000M in February 2011.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for nearly any workload represented in the database. The Quadro P2000 outperforms the Quadro 4000M by 28.2% in their only shared benchmark, and it does so while consuming 25% less power (75 W versus 100 W). It also dominates on paper in every measurable category: compute, texture, pixel, memory bandwidth, and API support. For tasks that rely on OpenCL compute, the P2000 is the only sensible choice between these two parts. The 4000M's only advantages are historical: it has a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 160-bit) and a lower transistor count, which in this context reflects its older, less efficient design. Its closest rivals in the database are low-end mobile parts like the GeForce 940M and the Radeon R7 M260X, underscoring its position as a legacy entry-level mobile workstation part. The P2000, however, sits among more capable parts like the RTX A400 and Radeon RX 6400, which makes it a far more relevant piece of hardware even in its end-of-life state.

For a buyer or builder considering these two, the only reason to pick the 4000M is if the system requires the MXM module form factor, since the P2000 is a standard single-slot PCIe card. The 4000M's portable device dependent display outputs are another limitation, while the P2000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a connections. The 4000M's support for DirectX 12 (11_0) is nominally present, but the P2000's DirectX 12 (12_1) is more capable. In terms of raw performance, the P2000 is faster in every recorded benchmark, and its average score of 6,049 versus 5,211 for the 4000M confirms a 16% overall advantage. The verdict is unambiguous: for any desktop workstation role, the P2000 is superior on every metric recorded in this database.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GP106 (P2000) vs GF104 (4000M)
• Architecture: Pascal vs Fermi
• Generation: Quadro Pascal (Px000) vs Quadro Fermi-M (x000M)
• Process Node: 16 nm vs 40 nm
• Transistor Count: 4,400 million vs 1,950 million
• Die Size: 200 mm² vs 332 mm²
• Transistor Density: 22.0M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1076 MHz vs null (not specified)
• Boost Clock: 1480 MHz vs null (not specified)
• Memory Clock: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) vs 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 5 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 160 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 140.2 GB/s vs 80.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1024 vs 336
• Texture Mapping Units: 64 vs 56
• Render Output Units: 40 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 59.20 GPixel/s vs 6.650 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 94.72 GTexel/s vs 26.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.031 TFLOPS vs 638.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) vs null (not supported)
• TDP: 75 W vs 100 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs MXM Module
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs null (not specified)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs null (not supported)
• Dimensions: 196 mm (7.7 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height vs not specified
• Release Date: 2017-02-05 vs 2011-02-21
• Predecessor: Quadro Maxwell vs Quadro FX Mobile
• Successor: Quadro Volta vs Quadro Kepler-M

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The Quadro P2000 is significantly faster, scoring 20,125 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, compared to the Quadro 4000M's 5,211, a 28.2% advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The P2000 has 140.2 GB/s, while the 4000M has 80.00 GB/s. Despite the 4000M having a wider 256-bit bus, its lower memory clock (2.5 Gbps effective versus 7 Gbps effective) limits its bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, while the 4000M has only 336, a 3:1 ratio in favor of the P2000.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Only the P2000 supports Vulkan (version 1.4).

Q: What are the TDPs of these cards?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a 75 W TDP, while the Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP. The P2000 consumes less power while delivering far more performance.

Q: Which card has a smaller die size?

A: The P2000 has a 200 mm² die, while the 4000M has a 332 mm² die. The P2000 achieves this with a 16 nm process, versus 40 nm for the 4000M, and packs 4,400 million transistors versus 1,950 million.