NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results deliver a clear upset. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 manages 4,249 points. That is a 22.6% advantage for the older mobile part, a significant margin that flips expectations given the generational gap between the two cards.

The Quadro 4000M's OpenCL result places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile. The raw score difference is not a statistical fluke; the delta is large enough that even accounting for run-to-run variance, the Quadro 4000M holds a decisive edge in this compute workload.

Looking at the rival landscape, the Quadro 4000M sits in a tight cluster. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940M by 1.4%, lands 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 760M, and leads the AMD Radeon R7 M260X by 1.0% and the Quadro K3100M by 1.1%. These are close margins, indicating that the 4000M performs right at the level of a mid-range mobile GPU from its era.

The Quadro P400's nearest rivals tell a different story. It sits 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and the Radeon R5 M320, 0.9% behind the Radeon R8 M445DX, and 1.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 970M. Notably, the P400 is competitive with a GeForce GTX 970M in OpenCL, a much larger card, but it cannot match the older Quadro 4000M's raw compute throughput.

The win count is one to zero in favor of the Quadro 4000M, as the only head-to-head test available is Geekbench OpenCL. There is no Vulkan result for the Quadro 4000M, so the P400's Vulkan score of 5,119 cannot be compared directly. For OpenCL, the data is unambiguous: the 4000M is the faster card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5,211 versus 4,249 for the Quadro P400, a 22.6% advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro P400 perform in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P400 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5,119. The Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan benchmark in the database, so cross-API comparison is not possible.

Q: Where do these cards rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro 4000M sits in the 30th percentile, above the Quadro P400's 27th percentile ranking.

Q: Is the Quadro P400 competitive with other mobile GPUs in OpenCL?

A: Yes, the P400 sits close to several rivals in the database. It is 1.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 970M and 0.6% ahead of the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and Radeon R5 M320, while trailing the Radeon R8 M445DX by 0.9%.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M outperform its own rival group?

A: The 4000M leads the Quadro K3100M by 1.1% and the Radeon R7 M260X by 1.0%, but slightly trails the GeForce 940M by 1.4% and the GeForce GTX 760M by 0.5%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro 4000M has an average benchmark score of 5,211, while the Quadro P400 averages 4,684.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for OpenCL compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the faster card. Its 5,211 score versus 4,249 for the P400 represents a 22.6% performance advantage, which is substantial in any workload comparison.

However, the verdict is not simply about raw speed. The Quadro P400 delivers comparable FP32 throughput at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS for the 4000M, yet it does so at a 30 W TDP instead of 100 W. The P400 also supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 4000M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed.

For users whose applications rely on OpenCL performance, the Quadro 4000M is the data-backed winner. For those who need modern API support, lower power consumption, and a single-slot desktop form factor, the Quadro P400 is the more sensible choice. The P400's Vulkan score of 5,119 also indicates that its measured performance in that API is respectable, even if no comparable 4000M result exists.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so this is a decision for legacy systems or used market purchases. The 4000M is a mobile MXM module, while the P400 is a desktop single-slot card, which already separates their use cases. The raw compute crown goes to the 4000M, but the P400's efficiency and API support make it the better fit for modern software stacks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially across nearly every specification field. The Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process, while the Quadro P400 is built on a 14 nm process. Transistor counts differ as well: the 4000M packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, whereas the P400 has 3,300 million transistors on a much smaller 132 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story of the process jump: 5.9M per mm² for the 4000M versus 25.0M per mm² for the P400.

Clock speeds are only listed for the P400, which has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost clock of 1252 MHz. The 4000M has no base or boost clock recorded, but its memory clock is 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the P400's memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations differ in bus width and bandwidth. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the 4000M uses a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the P400 has a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s. The 4000M has more shading units (336 versus 256), more TMUs (56 versus 16), and more ROPs (32 versus 16). Pixel rate is higher on the P400 at 20.03 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, but texture rate is higher on the 4000M at 26.60 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is nearly identical: 638.4 GFLOPS for the 4000M and 641.0 GFLOPS for the P400. The P400 also lists FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), which the 4000M does not report.

Power and physical specs vary greatly. The 4000M has a 100 W TDP, while the P400 draws only 30 W and suggests a 200 W PSU. The 4000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the P400 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Display outputs are portable-device dependent on the 4000M, whereas the P400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The P400 has recorded dimensions of 150 mm (5.9 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height; the 4000M has none listed. Neither card requires power connectors.

Release dates show a six-year gap: the 4000M launched in February 2011, and the P400 in February 2017. The 4000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile with the Quadro Kepler-M as its successor, while the P400's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, while the Quadro P400 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip. This is a generational leap that explains many of the specification disparities.

Fermi was NVIDIA's compute-focused architecture, and the GF104 chip in the 4000M carries 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pascal, by contrast, is a more efficiency-oriented design. The GP107 chip in the P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, yet it achieves comparable FP32 performance because of much higher clock speeds.

The process node difference is stark: 40 nm TSMC for Fermi versus 14 nm Samsung for Pascal. This explains how the P400 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, while the 4000M fits 1,950 million into 332 mm². The transistor density of 25.0M per mm² on the P400 versus 5.9M per mm² on the 4000M is a direct consequence of the process shrink.

The memory architecture also reflects the generational shift. The 4000M uses a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, a wide but power-hungry design. The P400's 64-bit bus delivers only 32.06 GB/s, but its higher memory clock (1002 MHz versus 625 MHz) partially compensates. The P400's memory bandwidth is a clear weakness in the data, and it likely contributes to the OpenCL deficit despite the architectural advantages elsewhere.

API support is another major divergence. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the 4000M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The 4000M's lack of Vulkan means it cannot run the P400's Vulkan benchmark, and modern applications that rely on Vulkan are effectively off the table for the older card.

The P400's FP16 capability of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) indicates a limited half-precision path, which the 4000M does not document. Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores, so neither offers dedicated acceleration for those workloads.

The architecture differences boil down to this: Fermi in the 4000M is a wider, older design with more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus a much wider memory bus. Pascal in the P400 is a denser, newer, more power-efficient design with higher clocks, better API support, and a smaller footprint. The 4000M wins the compute benchmark despite the architectural gap, which suggests that raw throughput in OpenCL favors the older card's wider execution resources.