NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive. The Quadro K4000 scores 6,816, while the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. That is a 30.8% advantage for the K4000. This is a substantial margin, placing the K4000 firmly ahead in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K4000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5,982. The Quadro 4000M, with only the OpenCL result recorded, holds an average of 5,211. The 771-point gap between their averages underscores the performance delta seen in the head-to-head test.

The Quadro K4000's position relative to its nearest rivals reinforces its standing. Its average score of 5,982 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986, a 0.1% delta), the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987, a 0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970, a 0.2% delta). Even against the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, which scores 5,996, the K4000 trails by only 0.2%. This places the K4000 in a tightly clustered performance band, where it is competitive with a wide range of contemporary and even much newer hardware.

The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, sits in a lower tier. Its average of 5,211 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154), and 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284). Its only win among nearest rivals is against the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161), where it leads by 1%. These deltas are small, indicating that the 4000M is competitive within its immediate peer group, but that group operates at a noticeably lower performance level than the K4000's group.

The percentile data further separates the two. The Quadro K4000 ranks in the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 4000M ranks in the 30th. This four-point difference reflects a real, if modest, positioning gap in the overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different architectural generations from NVIDIA, and the data highlights how those generations diverge. The Quadro K4000 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK106 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 4000M uses the older Fermi architecture, with the GF104 chip, on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. The process shrink is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm allows for a denser design.

The transistor counts reflect this. The K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The 4000M has 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die, for a density of just 5.9 million per mm². The K4000 achieves nearly double the density, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing node.

Compute resources differ sharply. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The 4000M is far leaner: 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer ROPs, the K4000's pixel rate is nearly double: 12.96 GPixel/s versus 6.65 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells a similar story: 51.84 GTexel/s for the K4000 against 26.60 GTexel/s for the 4000M. Floating-point performance (FP32) is also lopsided: 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the K4000 versus 638.4 GFLOPS for the 4000M.

Memory configurations also differ. The K4000 ships with 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 80.00 GB/s. The memory clock explains this: the K4000 runs at 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), while the 4000M is clocked at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The K4000's higher clock speed more than compensates for its narrower bus.

Power and physical design differ as well. The K4000 has an 80 W TDP, fits in a single slot, and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The 4000M is rated at 100 W, comes as an MXM module, and uses no external power connectors, as it is designed for portable devices. The K4000 is a desktop card, 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The 4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and its display outputs are described as portable device dependent.

API support shows a generational gap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K4000, however, supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 4000M has no recorded Vulkan support. This is a meaningful feature difference for modern applications.

The release dates place them in different eras. The 4000M launched in February 2011, and the K4000 in February 2013. The 4000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M generation, with the Quadro FX Mobile as its predecessor and Quadro Kepler-M as its successor. The K4000 is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000. It leads the sole head-to-head comparison by 30.8% in OpenCL, holds a higher average benchmark score (5,982 versus 5,211), and ranks in a higher percentile (34th versus 30th). Every measurable compute metric favors the K4000: shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and transistor density.

The K4000 is not just faster than the 4000M; it is competitive with a broad set of GPUs in its own performance band. Its average score places it within 0.2% of the AMD FirePro W4100 and within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. It even sits within 0.2% of a much newer and far more expensive server part, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. The 4000M, meanwhile, trades blows with mobile GeForce parts like the GTX 760M and GeForce 940M, trailing both slightly.

For a user choosing between these two, the data points firmly toward the K4000. It delivers more performance, more memory, and modern API support, including Vulkan. The 4000M retains only its wider memory bus and higher TDP as distinguishing traits, but neither translates into a benchmark win. The K4000 is the superior part by every recorded measure.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000, with a score of 6,816 versus 5,211 for the Quadro 4000M. This is a 30.8% advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000 compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The K4000 averages 5,982. It is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986) and the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987), and within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996).

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth and a 1,404 MHz memory clock. The 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 625 MHz memory clock.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M support Vulkan?

A: No. The recorded data shows no Vulkan support for the 4000M. The K4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the two cards compare in transistor density?

A: The K4000 has a density of 11.5 million transistors per mm², with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The 4000M has 5.9 million per mm², with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The K4000 averages 5,982, while the 4000M averages 5,211. The K4000 is ahead by 771 points.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K4000: The K4000 wins in every recorded category. It is 30.8% faster in OpenCL compute. Its FP32 performance of 1,244.2 GFLOPS is nearly double the 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s) both roughly double the 4000M's figures. It offers more memory (3 GB versus 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (134.8 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s). It supports Vulkan, which the 4000M does not. Its 28 nm process and 11.5M transistors per mm² density indicate a more modern and efficient design. Its average score of 5,982 places it in the 34th percentile, four points above the 4000M.

NVIDIA Quadro 4000M: The 4000M has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its only advantages are structural. It has a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 192-bit), more ROPs (32 versus 24), and a higher TDP (100 W versus 80 W). It also uses an MXM module form factor, which suits portable devices, whereas the K4000 is a desktop card. In its peer group, it leads the AMD Radeon R7 M260X by 1%, but trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by 0.5%, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M by 1.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M by 1.4%. For users constrained to a mobile MXM form factor, the 4000M is a functional option, but the data shows it is firmly behind the K4000 in compute performance.