NVIDIA Quadro K4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M edges out the Quadro K4000 with an average score of 5986 versus 5982, a razor-thin 0.1% margin that places both in the 34th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro K4000 wins decisively in the geekbench_opencl test, scoring 6816 against the K4000M's 5986 — a 12.2% advantage that represents the only head-to-head benchmark result between them.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro K4000M?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 matches the K4000M with an average score of 5987, a negligible 0.0% delta, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M trails by just 0.2% with a score of 6000.

Q: Which card offers more memory capacity?

A: The Quadro K4000M packs 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the Quadro K4000 comes with 3 GB on a narrower 192-bit interface.

Q: Do both cards share the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use NVIDIA's Kepler architecture built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they employ different chips: the K4000M uses GK104 while the K4000 uses GK106.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro K4000?

A: The Quadro K4000 had a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD. The K4000M's launch MSRP is not specified in the available data.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture at TSMC's 28 nm node, but they diverge significantly in silicon. The Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Quadro K4000 steps down to the GK106 chip, packing 2,540 million transistors onto a smaller 221 mm² die for a slightly lower density of 11.5M per mm². That is a 1 billion transistor gap between the two mobile and desktop parts.

The shading resources tell a similar story of divergence. The K4000M fields 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K4000 counters with 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs — a 25% reduction in each category. Despite fewer execution resources, the desktop card actually posts higher theoretical throughput: 1,244.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS for the notebook part, and 51.84 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s. Clock speeds explain this inversion; the K4000M runs at a flat 601 MHz base and boost, while the K4000's memory clock is listed at 1404 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective throughput.

Memory architecture differs as well. The K4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus for 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus but achieves a much higher 134.8 GB/s due to its faster memory clock. Pixel rate favors the desktop card too: 12.96 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, with no ray tracing or tensor cores on either.

Form factor and power delivery separate the pair further. The K4000M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, while the K4000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin connector, a 250 W suggested PSU, and an 80 W TDP. The desktop card measures 241 mm by 111 mm, while the mobile module's dimensions are not specified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available is geekbench_opencl, and the Quadro K4000 takes it by a clear margin. The desktop card scores 6816 against the K4000M's 5986, a 12.2% delta in favor of the K4000. That is a substantial gap for two cards that sit within 0.1% of each other in average benchmark score — the K4000's OpenCL strength is offset by its weaker average showing across other tests.

Looking at the wider competitive field, the K4000M's average of 5986 puts it in a tight cluster. The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5987, essentially a tie, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server sits at 5996 and the GeForce GTX 770M at 6000. The K4000's nearest rivals follow the same pattern: the K4000M at 5986, the FirePro W4100 at 5987, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970, and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996. Both cards occupy nearly identical positions in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, separated by a single point in average score.

The K4000's OpenCL victory is notable because it flips the expected outcome based on raw specifications. The K4000M has more cores, more TMUs, more ROPs, more memory, and a wider bus — yet the K4000's higher clocks and memory bandwidth deliver 12.2% better OpenCL performance. The memory bandwidth difference is particularly telling: 134.8 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s gives the desktop card a 50% bandwidth advantage that likely drives its OpenCL lead. The K4000 also posts higher pixel and texture rates despite its smaller core configuration, underscoring that clock speed can trump core count in this generation.

No other head-to-head tests are available in the data, so the OpenCL result stands as the only direct performance comparison. The K4000 claims the sole win in this matchup, while the K4000M records no victories in any listed benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner. The Quadro K4000 takes the only head-to-head benchmark, beating the K4000M by 12.2% in geekbench_opencl. It also offers higher FP32 throughput at 1,244.2 GFLOPS, superior memory bandwidth at 134.8 GB/s, and faster pixel and texture rates — all while drawing 20 W less power. For workloads that stress OpenCL compute or memory bandwidth, the desktop card is the better choice based strictly on benchmark results.

The Quadro K4000M, however, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 5986 actually edges the K4000's 5982, and it offers 4 GB of memory versus 3 GB. The wider 256-bit bus and larger frame buffer could benefit memory-capacity-bound workloads, though the K4000's faster memory clock mitigates that advantage in pure bandwidth terms. The mobile card's MXM form factor makes it the only option for notebook workstations, while the K4000 requires a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot and a 250 W PSU.

Buyers needing maximum compute performance in a desktop workstation should pick the Quadro K4000. Its 12.2% OpenCL lead and higher theoretical throughput make it the stronger performer where it matters most in this comparison. Users constrained to a mobile platform have no choice but the K4000M, which holds its own in average score and offers more memory capacity. The K4000's launch MSRP of 1,269 USD reflects its desktop positioning, while the K4000M's pricing is not disclosed in the available data. Both are end-of-life products, with the K4000M released in 2012 and the K4000 in 2013, and each has since been succeeded by Maxwell-based Quadro parts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK104 | GK106 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 601 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 601 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz / 2.8 Gbps effective | 1404 MHz / 5.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | 134.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 960 | 768 |

| TMUs | 80 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.02 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 48.08 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,153.9 GFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 80 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 241 mm (9.5 inches) x 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 1,269 USD |