NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, which takes the sole head-to-head benchmark victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4000M scores 5986 against the GeForce 930A’s 5317, a delta of 12.6%. This places the Quadro K4000M in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 930A sits at the 31st percentile. For any workload that relies on raw compute throughput, the Quadro K4000M is the definitive choice based on these measurements.

However, the choice is not purely about performance. The GeForce 930A consumes only 33 W, exactly one-third of the Quadro K4000M’s 100 W TDP. It is also built on a much smaller die, 77 mm² versus 294 mm², and uses a simpler IGP slot width rather than the MXM Module form factor. If the system constraint is power or physical space, the GeForce 930A becomes the practical pick, despite its lower score. The data does not favor the GeForce 930A in any benchmark, but its efficiency profile is distinct enough to matter in thermally or electrically limited designs.

For users prioritizing compute capability, the verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K4000M wins the only recorded comparison. For users prioritizing low power draw and compact integration, the GeForce 930A offers a viable alternative, but with a measurable performance penalty.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317. The Quadro K4000M leads by 12.6%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W. The GeForce 930A draws significantly less power.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4000M features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 930A has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GeForce 930A has a transistor density of 13.2M per mm², which is higher than the Quadro K4000M’s 12.0M per mm², despite the Quadro having more total transistors.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K4000M was released on 2012-05-31, while the GeForce 930A was released on 2015-03-12. The GeForce 930A is newer by nearly three years.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support: the Quadro K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GeForce 930A supports Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two NVIDIA GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro K4000M is based on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, while the GeForce 930A is based on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108 chip. This is a fundamental generational split, with Maxwell arriving after Kepler.

The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both are fabricated by TSMC. However, the physical implementation differs dramatically. The Quadro K4000M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GeForce 930A contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.2M per mm². The Maxwell chip is more efficiently packed per area, although it has far fewer total transistors.

The compute resources reflect this disparity. The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Neither GPU includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware features.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The Quadro K4000M runs at a base and boost clock of 601 MHz, while the GeForce 930A runs at 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The Maxwell part is clocked substantially higher, but it cannot overcome its smaller execution footprint in the recorded benchmark.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. The Quadro K4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 16.02 GB/s. This is a 5.6x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro in raw terms, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

The compute rates confirm the gap. The Quadro K4000M achieves a pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s. The GeForce 930A achieves 7.528 GPixel/s and 22.58 GTexel/s. For FP32 arithmetic, the Quadro K4000M delivers 1,153.9 GFLOPS, while the GeForce 930A delivers 722.7 GFLOPS. Neither has a recorded FP16 rate.

Power and form factor differ sharply. The Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W and uses an IGP slot width with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro K4000M runs memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the GeForce 930A runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The higher effective rate on the Quadro, combined with the wider bus, explains the bandwidth dominance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the Quadro K4000M. The score is 5986 against 5317, a delta of 12.6%. This is not a marginal difference; it is a solid double-digit lead.

To contextualize the Quadro K4000M’s score, its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987 (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (a 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (a -0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (a -0.2% delta). The Quadro K4000M sits essentially at parity with these four, all within 0.2% of each other. This suggests the Quadro K4000M is a mid-pack performer, not an outlier.

For the GeForce 930A, its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322 (a -0.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 (a 0.2% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284 (a 0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358 (a -0.8% delta). The GeForce 930A is tightly clustered with these parts, all within 0.8% of each other. Notably, the GeForce 930A slightly outpaces the GTX 980M in this specific test, despite the GTX 980M’s higher-tier branding.

The 12.6% gap between the two comparison GPUs is the largest delta in either list. It places the Quadro K4000M in a clearly higher performance tier than the GeForce 930A, even though both are end-of-life products now.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000M wins the only benchmark category recorded, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 12.6% advantage. This win extends across every compute-related specification: FP32 throughput (1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS), pixel rate (12.02 versus 7.528 GPixel/s), texture rate (48.08 versus 22.58 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (89.60 versus 16.02 GB/s). For any workload that stresses the GPU’s arithmetic units, shading capacity, or memory interface, the Quadro K4000M is the superior choice per the data.

The GeForce 930A has no benchmark wins, but it wins on efficiency and physical metrics. Its 33 W TDP versus 100 W is a 67% reduction in power draw. Its die is 77 mm² versus 294 mm², making it far smaller and cheaper to integrate into compact systems. Its IGP slot width, as opposed to the MXM Module, indicates a simpler, lower-profile installation path. Its higher base clock of 928 MHz versus 601 MHz does not translate into performance wins, but it does show a more aggressive clock strategy for a given power envelope.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the Quadro K4000M is for tasks where compute throughput and memory bandwidth are paramount, such as professional rendering or data-parallel compute. The GeForce 930A is for systems where power budgets are tight, thermal dissipation is limited, or the motherboard layout requires an integrated-class GPU. The data does not support choosing the GeForce 930A for raw speed, but it does support choosing it for constrained environments where the Quadro K4000M’s 100 W draw would be prohibitive.