NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data pits the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M against the NVIDIA GeForce 940M in a single benchmark test: Geekbench OpenCL. The 940M scores 6018, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5986. That is a delta of negative 0.5 percent for the K4000M, meaning the GeForce 940M wins this specific test by a hair. In practical terms, this is a negligible difference. A 0.5 percent gap is well within run-to-run variance for any benchmark, so the two are effectively tied in raw OpenCL compute performance.

Looking deeper at the average benchmark scores tells a different story. The K4000M has a single recorded benchmark entry, giving it an average score of 5986. The 940M has two recorded entries: the OpenCL score of 6018 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4549. That Vulkan result drags its average down to 5284. So while the 940M wins the OpenCL head-to-head, its average across all recorded tests is notably lower. The K4000M's percentile rank among all GPUs is 34, while the 940M sits at 31. When you consider the full body of measurements, the K4000M occupies a slightly higher position in the overall distribution.

The nearest rival data reinforces this picture. For the K4000M, the closest competitors are the AMD FirePro W4100 with an average score of 5987 and a delta of 0 percent, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (delta 0.1 percent), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (delta negative 0.2 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (delta negative 0.2 percent). The K4000M is essentially in a dead heat with all of these cards. For the 940M, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 (delta negative 0.4 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5317 (delta negative 0.6 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322 (delta negative 0.7 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (delta 0.9 percent). The 940M's average score of 5284 puts it within a single percentage point of every one of those cards, which is a remarkably tight cluster.

The key takeaway from the head-to-head data is this: in OpenCL, the 940M is either equal to or a fraction of a percent ahead of the K4000M. But the K4000M has a more consistent profile in the database, with no low-scoring Vulkan result to pull its average down. If you look only at the single shared test, there is no meaningful winner. If you look at the entire recorded data set, the K4000M edges ahead in percentile placement.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split decision. If your workload is built around OpenCL compute, the GeForce 940M is technically the winner by 0.5 percent, but that margin is too small to matter in real-world use. The 940M also has the advantage of a Vulkan score in the database, which means it has demonstrated capability in that API. The K4000M has no recorded Vulkan result, so there is no evidence it can handle Vulkan workloads at all.

If you are looking at overall standing in the database, the K4000M ranks higher at the 34th percentile versus the 940M's 31st. That is not a massive gap either, but it reflects the fact that the K4000M has no weak benchmark entries pulling it down. The 940M's Vulkan score of 4549 is far below its OpenCL score of 6018, which suggests inconsistent performance across different workloads.

Who should pick which? The 940M makes sense if you prioritize a single strong OpenCL result and want a newer generation part with a Vulkan score on record. The K4000M makes sense if you want a more balanced profile and a slightly better overall percentile rank. Neither card is a clear winner in raw performance. The practical choice depends on which API you actually need. If you never touch Vulkan, the K4000M's higher percentile and comparable OpenCL score make it the safer pick. If you need Vulkan support, the 940M is the only one of the two with recorded evidence of capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986. That is a 0.5 percent difference in favor of the 940M.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The K4000M has an average score of 5986 from a single OpenCL result. The 940M has an average score of 5284, pulled down by a Vulkan score of 4549 alongside its OpenCL score of 6018.

Q: Which GPU has a better percentile rank?

A: The K4000M sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the 940M sits at the 31st percentile.

Q: Does the K4000M have a recorded Vulkan benchmark result?

A: No. The database contains only a Geekbench OpenCL score for the K4000M. The 940M has both OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

Q: How close are these GPUs to their nearest rivals?

A: The K4000M is within 0.2 percent of its closest rivals, including the AMD FirePro W4100, NVIDIA Quadro K4000, NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M. The 940M is within 0.9 percent of its closest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, GeForce 930A, GeForce 840M, and GeForce GTX 760M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in memory configuration. The K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s. That is a massive bandwidth gap, roughly six times more memory throughput for the K4000M. The memory clock also differs: the K4000M runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective, while the 940M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

The core configurations are also different. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The 940M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Despite having fewer cores, the 940M runs at higher clocks: 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost, versus the K4000M's fixed 601 MHz base and boost. The result is a pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s for the 940M versus 12.02 GPixel/s for the K4000M. The texture rate is 35.14 GTexel/s for the 940M versus 48.08 GTexel/s for the K4000M. FP32 performance is close: 1,124.4 GFLOPS for the 940M and 1,153.9 GFLOPS for the K4000M.

Power draw differs as well. The K4000M is rated at 100 W, while the 940M is rated at 75 W. Both use an MXM Module slot width, have no power connectors, and use an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The K4000M uses the GK104 chip under the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The 940M uses the GM107 chip under the Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6 million per mm². The Maxwell chip is smaller and denser, but the Kepler chip has nearly twice the transistor count.

The generations are different: the K4000M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation, while the 940M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. The K4000M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. The 940M's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile. The K4000M launched on 2012-05-31, while the 940M launched on 2015-03-12. Both are end-of-life products.

API support shows a notable difference. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 940M supports Vulkan 1.4. That newer Vulkan version aligns with the 940M's recorded Vulkan benchmark result and its Maxwell generation.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are pure rasterization and compute parts.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940M wins in the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 0.5 percent. It also has a higher boost clock, a higher pixel rate, and a lower power draw of 75 W versus 100 W. For users running OpenCL workloads on a laptop, the 940M is the recorded winner, albeit by a margin that is effectively noise. The 940M also has a Vulkan benchmark score on record, so it has proven Vulkan performance, and it supports the newer Vulkan 1.4 API specification.

The Quadro K4000M wins in memory bandwidth by a wide margin: 89.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. It has double the VRAM at 4 GB versus 2 GB, and it uses GDDR5 instead of DDR3. It has more shading units, more texture mapping units, and more raster output units. Its FP32 performance is slightly higher at 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 1,124.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate is also higher at 48.08 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s. The K4000M also holds the higher percentile rank at 34 versus 31, and it has a higher average benchmark score of 5986 versus 5284.

For bandwidth-sensitive applications, such as large textures or high-resolution framebuffers, the K4000M is the clear choice based on the memory subsystem alone. For compute-bound tasks that fit within the API support of the 940M, the newer Maxwell part holds the edge in the single recorded test. The data does not support a claim that either card dominates the other across all workloads. The K4000M is the more balanced part in the database, while the 940M is the more specialized one with a strong OpenCL showing and a weaker Vulkan showing. Choose the K4000M for memory-heavy work and overall percentile standing. Choose the 940M for OpenCL compute and lower power consumption.