NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable compute measurement for these two mobile graphics processors: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that run, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M records a score of 5986, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M records 5764. The Quadro K4000M leads by 3.9 percent. That is a modest margin, but the underlying architecture and memory configuration explain why the gap exists.

The Quadro K4000M sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5986. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5987 (a rounding-level difference of zero percent), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982 (0.1 percent behind), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996 (0.2 percent ahead of the K4000M), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000 (0.2 percent ahead). The K4000M is effectively in a dead heat with all of these parts in the recorded OpenCL data. None of the deltas exceed 0.2 percent, which places the Quadro squarely in a four-way statistical tie among its nearest neighbors.

The GeForce 840M, by contrast, occupies the 31st percentile of all GPUs and has an average benchmark score of 5322, which is lower than its single OpenCL result because the database also includes a Vulkan run of 4880 for this part. The OpenCL score alone is 5764, but the average drags it down. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5317 (0.1 percent behind the 840M), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 (0.3 percent behind), the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358 (0.7 percent ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284 (0.7 percent behind). The 840M leads its closest competitors by fractions of a percent, but the entire group is separated by less than 1.5 percent in average score.

Looking strictly at the head-to-head comparison, the Quadro K4000M wins the single OpenCL benchmark. The 3.9 percent advantage is real but not overwhelming. In practical terms, the K4000M delivers roughly 4 percent more OpenCL compute throughput than the 840M, which would translate into slightly faster execution of compute workloads that scale well with raw throughput. The 840M, however, has a second benchmark result in the database, a Vulkan score of 4880, which is substantially lower than its OpenCL number. No Vulkan result is recorded for the K4000M, so the two cannot be compared on that API.

The wins tally in the database is 1 for the Quadro K4000M and 0 for the GeForce 840M. That reflects the single shared test, not a comprehensive suite. The recorded data simply does not include more overlapping workloads. Still, the available evidence points in one direction: the Quadro holds the compute edge in OpenCL, and the margin is consistent with its larger memory bus and higher memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5764. The Quadro is 3.9 percent ahead.

Q: How does the GeForce 840M's average benchmark score compare to its OpenCL score?

A: The 840M has an average benchmark score of 5322 across its recorded tests. Its OpenCL score is 5764, and its Vulkan score is 4880. The average is lower because the Vulkan result is well below the OpenCL result.

Q: What percentile does each GPU occupy in the database?

A: The Quadro K4000M sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, and the GeForce 840M sits in the 31st percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the GeForce 840M beats the Quadro K4000M?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, no. The Quadro wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 3.9 percent. The 840M has a Vulkan result, but no Vulkan score is recorded for the Quadro, so no comparison is possible.

Q: How close are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4000M's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987, which is effectively identical (0 percent delta). The GeForce 840M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5317, which is 0.1 percent behind. Both GPUs are surrounded by competitors within roughly 1 percent of their average scores.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor density?

A: The GeForce 840M has a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro K4000M has 12.0 million per square millimeter. The 840M is denser despite having far fewer total transistors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different design philosophies. The Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce 840M uses the GM108S chip on the Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both are built on the same node, but the chips diverge sharply in scale.

The GK104 die is large. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GM108S is far smaller: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, which works out to 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Maxwell chip is denser, but the Kepler chip has more than three times the total transistor count and nearly four times the die area. That scale shows up in the execution resources.

The Quadro K4000M carries 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The GeForce 840M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Quadro has 2.5 times the shading units, 5 times the texture units, and 4 times the render output units. These are structural differences, not clock-driven ones. The Quadro's pixel rate is 12.02 gigapixels per second, versus 8.992 for the 840M. Its texture rate is 48.08 gigatexels per second, versus 17.98 for the 840M. Its FP32 compute is 1,153.9 GFLOPS, versus 863.2 for the 840M. The Quadro wins every throughput metric by a clear margin, though the 840M narrows the gap on FP32 because its clocks are substantially higher.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores; both predate those features. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support differs: the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 840M lists Vulkan 1.4. The 840M is a newer design with a newer Vulkan API version, which matters for applications that rely on newer Vulkan features.

The memory architecture is another major split. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, producing 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing 16.02 GB/s. The Quadro has 5.6 times the memory bandwidth. That is the single largest functional difference between the two parts. GDDR5 versus DDR3, 256-bit versus 64-bit, and 4 GB versus 2 GB all compound into a bandwidth gap that no amount of clock speed can overcome.

The 840M compensates with higher clocks. Its base clock is 1029 MHz and its boost clock is 1124 MHz, while the Quadro runs at a flat 601 MHz for both base and boost. The 840M clocks nearly twice as high, which helps its FP32 throughput reach 863.2 GFLOPS despite having far fewer shading units. But memory bandwidth is the bottleneck for many workloads, and the Quadro's 89.60 GB/s dwarfs the 840M's 16.02 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is the same, 28 nm at TSMC, but the chips are otherwise dissimilar.

The Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip, while the 840M uses the GM108S. The Quadro belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx000M), and the 840M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The 840M's predecessor is the GeForce 700M and its successor is the GeForce 900M.

Transistor counts differ: 3,540 million for the Quadro versus 1,020 million for the 840M. Die sizes differ: 294 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor density is 12.0 million per square millimeter for the Quadro and 13.2 million for the 840M.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The Quadro runs at 601 MHz base and 601 MHz boost. The 840M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro's memory runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective, while the 840M's memory runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity differs: 4 GB versus 2 GB. Memory type differs: GDDR5 versus DDR3. Bus width differs: 256-bit versus 64-bit. Bandwidth differs: 89.60 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s.

Compute resources differ across the board. The Quadro has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 840M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS.

Thermal and physical characteristics differ. The Quadro has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The 840M has a TDP of 33 W and uses an IGP slot width with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. Neither uses power connectors. Both have display outputs marked as portable device dependent.

The API lists differ slightly. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the 840M supports Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro has no recorded FP16 data, and neither does the 840M.

Release dates differ. The Quadro K4000M was released on May 31, 2012. The GeForce 840M was released on March 11, 2014. Both are end-of-life products. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000M wins in every measured compute category. Its OpenCL score is 3.9 percent higher than the 840M's. Its FP32 throughput is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS, a 33.7 percent advantage. Its pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s. Its texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s, a 5.6 times advantage. For any workload that depends on memory bandwidth, texture fetching, or raw pixel throughput, the Quadro is the clear choice.

The Quadro also has more memory: 4 GB versus 2 GB. That matters for larger datasets, higher-resolution textures, or workloads that need to hold more data on the GPU. The 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory give it a structural advantage that the 840M cannot match regardless of clock speed.

The GeForce 840M wins on efficiency and modern API support. Its TDP is 33 W versus 100 W, a 67 percent reduction in power draw. That makes it suitable for thinner, lighter laptops with smaller cooling solutions. Its clock speeds are much higher: 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, versus a flat 601 MHz on the Quadro. Higher clocks help single-threaded or lightly parallel workloads that respond well to frequency. The 840M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro only reaches Vulkan 1.2.175. For applications that use newer Vulkan features, the 840M is the more compatible part.

The 840M's smaller die, 77 mm² versus 294 mm², and lower transistor count, 1,020 million versus 3,540 million, mean it is a much simpler chip to manufacture and integrate. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is standard for mobile discrete GPUs, while the Quadro's MXM-B (3.0) interface ties it to modular laptop designs.

The database's percentile rankings reflect the overall picture. The Quadro sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, and the 840M sits at the 31st. Both are near the lower-middle of the performance distribution, but the Quadro ranks slightly higher. The 840M's average benchmark score of 5322 is pulled down by its Vulkan result of 4880, which is well below its OpenCL score of 5764. The Quadro has only one recorded benchmark, so its average equals its OpenCL score.

The Verdict

The data points to two different use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the stronger compute part. It wins the only shared benchmark by 3.9 percent, dominates in FP32 throughput with 1,153.9 GFLOPS against 863.2 GFLOPS, and offers 89.60 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s. Its 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer on a 256-bit bus gives it a 5.6 times bandwidth advantage over the 840M. Anyone running OpenCL compute workloads, working with large textures, or needing high pixel and texture throughput should choose the Quadro. Its 100 W TDP is a cost, but the performance structure justifies it for those tasks.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is the efficiency pick. Its 33 W TDP is one-third of the Quadro's, and its small 77 mm² die with 1,020 million transistors makes it a lightweight mobile part. Its higher clocks, 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, give it competitive FP32 performance despite having only 384 shading units. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175, which matters for modern Vulkan-based applications. For users who prioritize battery life, thermals, and newer API compatibility over raw throughput, the 840M is the better fit.

The benchmark record is limited. There is only one overlapping test, Geekbench OpenCL, and the Quadro wins it. The 840M has a Vulkan score of 4880, but the Quadro has no Vulkan result, so the two cannot be compared there. The wins tally stands at 1 for the Quadro and 0 for the 840M.

Both parts are end-of-life products, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The Quadro K4000M, released in 2012, represents the high-end mobile workstation approach: large die, wide memory bus, high power draw, and maximum compute throughput. The GeForce 840M, released in 2014, represents the mainstream mobile approach: small die, narrow memory bus, low power draw, and modern API support. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the priority is raw compute and memory bandwidth or efficiency and API modernity. The recorded data favors the Quadro on performance and the 840M on efficiency.