NVIDIA Quadro K4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two compute-oriented workloads, and in both cases the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 takes a decisive lead. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M4000 scores 19,118 against the Quadro K4000's 6,816. That is a 64.3% margin in favor of the M4000, meaning the M4000 delivers roughly 2.8 times the OpenCL throughput of the older card. The gap is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan: the M4000 posts 24,640 while the K4000 manages 6,964, a 71.7% difference. In other words, the M4000 is about 3.5 times faster in this API workload.

These are not marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap. The K4000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5,982, while the M4000 sits at 5,467. Despite the M4000 winning both head-to-head tests, its overall average is actually lower than the K4000's. This is because the M4000's benchmark suite includes several legacy DirectX and Passmark tests where it scores modestly, such as 33 in Passmark DirectX 10, 49 in Passmark DirectX 11, and 26 in Passmark DirectX 12. The K4000's average is buoyed by its three Geekbench results, all of which fall between 4,166 and 6,964. The M4000's Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are far higher, but its additional Passmark results pull the overall average down.

For context, the K4000 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M4000 is at the 32nd percentile. Their nearest rivals tell an interesting story. The K4000's closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, which averages 5,996, a 0.2% difference. The M4000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483, a 0.3% gap. Both cards are clustered with mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts from several generations ago, which underscores their dated status in the current database.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins decisively, scoring 19,118 versus the K4000's 6,816, a 64.3% advantage.

Q: Is the Vulkan gap as large as the OpenCL gap?

A: Yes, and it is slightly larger. The M4000 scores 24,640 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the K4000 scores 6,964, a 71.7% difference.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The M4000 has 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256-bit bus, while the K4000 offers 134.8 GB/s on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K4000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan versions differ: the M4000 supports Vulkan 1.4, the K4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

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

A: The K4000 averages 5,982 across its recorded tests, while the M4000 averages 5,467. Despite this, the M4000 wins every head-to-head comparison.

Q: Which card consumes more power?

A: The M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, while the K4000 is rated at 80 W. Both use a single 6-pin power connector.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing generations, though both use a 28 nm process at TSMC. The K4000 is built on Kepler, using the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The M4000 uses Maxwell 2.0, built around the GM204 chip, which packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, resulting in a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The M4000's die is nearly twice as large and holds more than double the transistors.

The shader configuration diverges significantly. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The M4000 nearly doubles the shading units to 1,664, raises TMUs to 104, and jumps to 64 ROPs. These raw counts translate directly into throughput metrics. The K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the M4000 reaches 2.573 TFLOPS, more than double. Pixel rate also more than triples: 12.96 GPixel/s for the K4000 versus 49.47 GPixel/s for the M4000. Texture rate rises from 51.84 GTexel/s to 80.39 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The K4000 ships with 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, running at 1,404 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective speed. The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, clocked at 1,502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed. Bandwidth improves from 134.8 GB/s to 192.3 GB/s. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those features.

The bus interface also advances: the K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the M4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well. The K4000 offers one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the M4000 provides four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Both cards are single-slot designs with identical physical dimensions: 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The K4000 was released in February 2013, while the M4000 came in June 2015. Both are now end-of-life, with the K4000 succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell, while the M4000 succeeds Quadro Kepler and precedes Quadro Pascal.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in compute-heavy workloads. The M4000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 64.3% and 71.7%. For any task that stresses OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the M4000 is the clear choice. Its FP32 throughput of 2.573 TFLOPS versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS, combined with 8 GB of memory versus 3 GB, also points to substantially better performance in memory-bound or large-dataset scenarios.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The K4000 averages 5,982, which is higher than the M4000's 5,467. This is because the M4000's benchmark suite includes several low-scoring legacy tests, including Passmark DirectX 9 at 113, DirectX 10 at 33, DirectX 11 at 49, and DirectX 12 at 26. The K4000's three Geekbench scores are all above 4,000. So, if the workload relies on older DirectX APIs or 2D rendering, the K4000 may actually come out ahead in the recorded metrics, despite losing the modern compute tests.

The percentile rankings are close: 34th for the K4000 versus 32nd for the M4000. Both are positioned near mid-range mobile GPUs from their respective eras. The M4000's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M440, is only 0.3% away, while the K4000's nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, is 0.2% away. These tight clusters suggest that neither card stands out dramatically in aggregate performance, even though the M4000 dominates in specific modern compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: K4000 uses GK106, M4000 uses GM204.
• Architecture: K4000 is Kepler, M4000 is Maxwell 2.0.
• Generation: K4000 is Quadro Kepler (Kx000), M4000 is Quadro Maxwell (Mx000).
• Transistors: 2,540 million versus 5,200 million.
• Die size: 221 mm² versus 398 mm².
• Transistor density: 11.5M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm².
• Memory speed: 1,404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) versus 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: 3 GB versus 8 GB.
• Memory bus width: 192 bit versus 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 134.8 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s.
• Shading units: 768 versus 1,664.
• TMUs: 64 versus 104.
• ROPs: 24 versus 64.
• Pixel rate: 12.96 GPixel/s versus 49.47 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 51.84 GTexel/s versus 80.39 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS.
• TDP: 80 W versus 120 W.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 300 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus 1.4.
• Release date: February 2013 versus June 2015.
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi versus Quadro Kepler.
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell versus Quadro Pascal.
• Launch MSRP: The K4000 launched at 1,269 USD. The M4000 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The M4000 wins in every modern compute scenario. Its OpenCL score of 19,118 and Vulkan score of 24,640 dwarf the K4000's 6,816 and 6,964, respectively. The M4000's higher FP32 throughput, larger memory pool, and wider memory bus make it the better choice for GPU compute, rendering, or any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 also ensures compatibility with newer software stacks. The M4000's four DisplayPort outputs and PCIe 3.0 interface further enhance its suitability for multi-display and high-bandwidth systems.

The K4000 wins in aggregate average score, 5,982 versus 5,467, and its percentile ranking is slightly higher at 34th versus 32nd. The K4000's lower TDP of 80 W versus 120 W and lower suggested PSU of 250 W versus 300 W make it a more power-frugal option. For legacy DirectX workloads, the K4000 may perform better, given that the M4000's Passmark DirectX scores are all below 50 (with DirectX 9 at 113). The K4000 also has the advantage of a recorded launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, though the M4000 has no such figure in the database.

In practical terms, the choice depends on the workload. Users running modern compute APIs will see a massive benefit from the M4000. Users relying on older DirectX pipelines, or those with strict power budgets, might find the K4000 more suitable based on the recorded data. Both cards are end-of-life, so neither represents a future-proof investment, but the M4000's hardware specifications point to a longer useful life for contemporary applications.