NVIDIA Quadro K4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional mobile and workstation graphics solutions. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins every recorded head-to-head comparison, and the margin is substantial. Across the two shared tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the M5000M dominates outright. There is no recorded test in which the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 takes a win.

The M5000M is the clear choice for compute-oriented workloads that leverage OpenCL. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22920 versus the K4000's 6816 represents a 236.3% advantage. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw throughput. For GPU compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, or data processing, the M5000M is in a different performance class.

Similarly, in Vulkan graphics workloads, the M5000M posts 24875 against the K4000's 6964, a 257.2% delta. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the M5000M's architecture handles it far more efficiently. For applications that expose Vulkan paths, the M5000M will deliver dramatically higher frame throughput and smoother interactive performance.

The K4000 does hold one structural advantage: it is a desktop-oriented single-slot card with a 241 mm length and 111 mm height, whereas the M5000M is an MXM module for portable devices. For users building a fixed workstation with a PCIe slot, the K4000 is physically appropriate. The data, however, shows its performance is far behind in every measurable compute and graphics test. The M5000M is the winner for anyone prioritizing performance, while the K4000 remains relevant only for legacy desktop integration scenarios.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M in OpenCL compute?

A: The M5000M scores 22920 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K4000 scores 6816. That is a 236.3% advantage for the M5000M.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The M5000M is decisively ahead with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24875 versus the K4000's 6964, a 257.2% difference.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The M5000M sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, while the K4000 sits at the 34th percentile. The M5000M also has a higher average benchmark score of 6481 versus 5982 for the K4000.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The K4000 has a lower TDP of 80 W compared to the M5000M's 100 W. However, the M5000M delivers more than triple the compute performance in the recorded tests, so performance per watt heavily favors the M5000M.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The M5000M was released on 2015-08-17, and the K4000 on 2013-02-28.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M5000M produces 22920 points against 6816 for the K4000. The 236.3% delta means the M5000M more than triples the output of the older card. This is the kind of gap that changes project timelines: a render that takes three hours on the K4000 would take roughly one hour on the M5000M, assuming the workload scales linearly with OpenCL throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the story is even more pronounced. The M5000M scores 24875, and the K4000 scores 6964, a 257.2% difference. Vulkan is designed to reduce driver overhead and expose more parallel work to the GPU, and the M5000M's Maxwell 2.0 architecture clearly responds better to that model. The K4000's Kepler design, with its older API feature set, cannot keep pace.

The average benchmark score across all recorded tests reinforces the gap. The M5000M averages 6481, while the K4000 averages 5982. The nearest rival to the M5000M is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476, a mere 0.1% difference. The nearest rival to the K4000 is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986, a 0.1% deficit. These proximity values show that both cards sit in competitive neighborhoods for their respective eras, but the absolute performance difference between the two is vast.

The M5000M also has a broader benchmark footprint. The database records nine benchmark scores for the M5000M, spanning OpenCL, Vulkan, DirectX 9 through 12, 2D graphics, 3D graphics, and compute. The K4000 only has three recorded scores, all in Geekbench tests. This means the M5000M has been validated across a wider range of legacy and modern APIs, including Passmark DirectX 10 at 35, DirectX 11 at 54, DirectX 12 at 29, DirectX 9 at 119, G2D at 476, G3D at 7062, and GPU compute at 2756. The K4000 has no recorded DirectX or Passmark scores, so no direct comparison is possible there, but the absence itself indicates a less complete testing profile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every core specification. The M5000M is built around the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The K4000 uses the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. Both use a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the M5000M packs more than twice the transistor count into a die that is roughly 80% larger.

Memory is another major differentiator. The M5000M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000 offers 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 134.8 GB/s. The M5000M has more capacity and more bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the M5000M. It has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. The M5000M has exactly double the shading units and 50% more TMUs, plus 2.67 times the ROP count. These differences directly explain the pixel rate and texture rate gaps: the M5000M achieves 67.26 GPixel/s and 100.9 GTexel/s, while the K4000 manages 12.96 GPixel/s and 51.84 GTexel/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The M5000M has a base clock of 962 MHz and a boost clock of 1051 MHz. The K4000 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. Its memory clock is 1404 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective, while the M5000M runs memory at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. Despite the K4000's higher memory clock, its narrower bus limits total bandwidth.

The form factors are entirely different. The M5000M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors. The K4000 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, one 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K4000 measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The M5000M has no recorded dimensions, as it is designed for portable devices and its display outputs are device-dependent. The K4000 has fixed outputs: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The M5000M is based on Maxwell 2.0, while the K4000 is based on the older Kepler architecture. This is the single most important architectural distinction. Maxwell 2.0 introduced significant improvements in compute efficiency, particularly in geometry processing and color compression, which helps explain the M5000M's massive lead in OpenCL and Vulkan.

The M5000M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, with its predecessor being Quadro Kepler-M and its successor Quadro Pascal-M. The K4000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler generation, with its predecessor Quadro Fermi and its successor Quadro Maxwell. The M5000M is therefore one full architectural generation ahead of the K4000.

DirectX support differs. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The 12_1 feature level includes additional features such as conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views, which can matter for advanced rendering effects. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the M5000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

The transistor density tells a subtle story. The M5000M has 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter, while the K4000 has 11.5 million per square millimeter. Both are on the same 28 nm TSMC process, so the density difference reflects the architectural efficiency of Maxwell 2.0 over Kepler. The M5000M packs more logic into each square millimeter, and its larger die allows for far more total compute resources.

The shading architecture differs as well. Maxwell 2.0 uses a different scheduler and dispatch model compared to Kepler, which improves instruction-level parallelism and reduces idle cycles. This is reflected in the FP32 throughput: the M5000M delivers 3.229 TFLOPS, while the K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS. The M5000M has roughly 2.6 times the single-precision floating-point throughput, which is a direct driver of its OpenCL advantage.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are pure raster and compute GPUs from their respective generations. The M5000M's advantage comes entirely from its larger execution resource pool, higher clocks, and more modern architecture. The K4000, released earlier and built on a less efficient design, simply cannot compete on raw throughput.

The memory subsystem differences are architectural as well. The M5000M's 256-bit bus is wider than the K4000's 192-bit bus. Even though the K4000 has a slightly higher effective memory clock at 5.6 Gbps versus 5 Gbps, the M5000M still achieves 19% more bandwidth. For memory-bound workloads, the M5000M has the edge.

The launch details also differ. The K4000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, while the M5000M has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life, with the K4000 released in 2013 and the M5000M in 2015. The two-year gap explains much of the architectural and performance disparity.