NVIDIA Quadro K4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between these two workstation GPUs, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M manages 5,986 points. That is a delta of 68.7 percent in favor of the M4000, meaning the newer card delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this particular workload.

The gap is not subtle. The M4000's OpenCL result places it in a completely different performance tier, and the recorded data shows no benchmark where the K4000M comes out ahead. The older Kepler-based mobile workstation part wins zero head-to-head comparisons in the database, while the Maxwell-based desktop card wins one out of one.

To contextualize the K4000M's score, its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 points (a 0 percent delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982 points (0.1 percent delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 points (a negative 0.2 percent delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 points (also a negative 0.2 percent delta). The K4000M sits inside a very tight cluster of similarly performing parts, all within roughly a third of a percent of each other. This suggests the K4000M is squarely average for its era, neither a standout nor a laggard among its immediate peers.

The M4000, by contrast, has nearest rivals that include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 points (negative 0.3 percent delta), the AMD Radeon 610M at 5,444 points (0.4 percent delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 points (negative 0.6 percent delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 points (negative 0.7 percent delta). Note that the M4000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5,467, which is dragged down by its many sub-100 scores in legacy DirectX tests. But its OpenCL score of 19,118 is nearly three and a half times its own average, showing that the part scales dramatically depending on the workload.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and serve different form factors. The K4000M is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The M4000 uses the GM204 chip with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with 5,200 million transistors across a larger 398 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ substantially. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. The M4000 more than doubles the shader count to 1,664, increases TMUs to 104, and doubles ROPs to 64. These are not incremental bumps; they represent a wholesale redesign of the compute and rendering pipelines. Pixel rate on the M4000 is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s on the K4000M, and texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.573 TFLOPS on the M4000 versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS on the K4000M.

Memory capacity doubles as well. The K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but with faster memory clocked at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) it achieves 192.3 GB/s, more than twice the bandwidth. Clock speeds for the K4000M are locked at 601 MHz for both base and boost, while the M4000's core clocks are not recorded in the database.

The form factor and interface also diverge. The K4000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable workstations, and it draws 100 W with no auxiliary power connectors. The M4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, using PCIe 3.0 x16, drawing 120 W with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested power supply of 300 W. Display outputs on the M4000 are four DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the K4000M's outputs are portable device dependent.

API support differs as well. The K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the M4000 reflect its later release and more modern architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The M4000 wins every recorded workload in which both parts appear. The OpenCL compute test is the only direct comparison, and the M4000's 68.7 percent advantage is massive. Beyond that single head-to-head, the M4000's broader benchmark suite shows where it excels: in modern compute-oriented tasks. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,640 is even higher than its OpenCL score, indicating strong cross-API compute performance. Its Passmark G3D score of 6,680 and GPU compute score of 2,660 show balanced capability across rasterization and general-purpose workloads.

The K4000M's only recorded benchmark is that OpenCL score of 5,986, which places it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile, though this is skewed by its very low legacy DirectX scores. In Passmark DirectX 9, the M4000 scores 113, but in DirectX 10 it drops to 33, DirectX 11 to 49, and DirectX 12 to 26. These low scores suggest the M4000 is not optimized for older fixed-function pipelines, while its G2D score of 673 indicates competent 2D acceleration.

For use cases, the split is clear: the M4000 is the choice for any compute-heavy workload, including OpenCL and Vulkan acceleration, high-resolution texture work, and multi-display professional setups. Its 8 GB frame buffer and doubled bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets that exceed the K4000M's 4 GB capacity. The K4000M, being a mobile part, is constrained by its MXM form factor and lower power envelope, but it remains a functional option for portable workstation duties where the M4000's desktop chassis cannot be used.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986, giving the M4000 a 68.7 percent advantage.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two?

A: The K4000M uses the Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip, while the M4000 uses Maxwell 2.0 on the GM204 chip. The M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the K4000M.

Q: Which card is better for modern compute APIs?

A: The M4000 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). The M4000's Vulkan score of 24,640 further demonstrates its compute advantage.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The K4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors. The M4000 has a 120 W TDP, uses a single-slot PCIe card format, and requires one 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W power supply.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The K4000M was released in 2012 and the M4000 in 2015.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior part in every measurable way within this comparison. Its OpenCL performance is 68.7 percent ahead of the K4000M, its FP32 compute is more than double at 2.573 TFLOPS versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS, its memory bandwidth is more than double at 192.3 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s, and its frame buffer is double at 8 GB versus 4 GB. The M4000 also has more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, higher pixel and texture rates, and support for newer API versions.

The K4000M's only advantages are its lower power draw (100 W versus 120 W), its compact MXM form factor for portable systems, and its lack of a power connector requirement. For anyone choosing between these two for a workstation, the M4000 is the obvious pick unless the system physically requires an MXM module. The K4000M's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its 5,986 OpenCL score, confirming that it is an average performer for its generation. The M4000, despite its low legacy DirectX scores, shows exceptional strength in modern compute APIs, with its Vulkan score of 24,640 exceeding even its own OpenCL result.

The verdict from the benchmark data: choose the M4000 for desktop workstations requiring compute performance, memory capacity, and modern API support. Choose the K4000M only if the deployment target is a portable workstation that cannot accommodate a PCIe card. The M4000 wins the head-to-head, and the margin is not close.