NVIDIA Quadro K4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M represent two distinct generations of professional mobile and desktop graphics, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The P2000, built on the 16nm Pascal process, delivers a substantial generational leap in raw compute and memory bandwidth over the older 28nm Kepler-based K4000M. While both target professional workloads, their benchmark data reveals a stark performance disparity, with the P2000 winning the only shared test by an enormous margin. This analysis examines their architectural foundations, specification differences, and the implications of their respective benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, placing the P2000 slightly ahead by approximately 1 percent.

Q: How does the P2000 compare to its nearest rivals in terms of average score?

A: The P2000's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, scores 6077, which is 0.5 percent higher. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019 (0.5 percent lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 6001 (0.8 percent lower).

Q: What is the performance difference in the single shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P2000 scores 20125 compared to the K4000M's 5986, resulting in a 236.2 percent advantage for the P2000.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The P2000, fabricated on a 16nm process, achieves a transistor density of 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter, whereas the K4000M on 28nm has a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The P2000 features 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus but only 89.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their shading unit counts compare?

A: The P2000 has 1024 shading units, while the K4000M has 960 shading units, a difference of 64 units in favor of the P2000.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is decisively one-sided. The P2000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available – Geekbench OpenCL – with a score of 20125 versus the K4000M's 5986. That is not a marginal victory; it is a 236.2 percent blowout. The K4000M has no benchmark wins at all in this dataset.

However, the picture is more nuanced when looking at the full benchmark suite for the P2000. Its Passmark G3D score of 6956 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 23566 indicate strong general-purpose compute and graphics performance. The K4000M only has the single OpenCL score, so its capabilities in other workloads remain unmeasured here.

The K4000M's closest rivals are the AMD FirePro W4100 (deltaPct 0), NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (0.1 percent), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (-0.2 percent). This suggests the K4000M sits in the lower-mid range of professional GPUs. The P2000, meanwhile, is bracketed by the GeForce MX230 and RTX A400, both within 0.5 percent, indicating it occupies a similar performance tier despite its much higher OpenCL showing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The P2000 uses the GP106 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 16nm. It packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. The K4000M uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture, also from TSMC but at 28nm, with 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die.

The process shrink from 28nm to 16nm allows the P2000 to achieve a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter, nearly double the K4000M's 12.0 million. This density advantage enables higher clock speeds and better power efficiency. The P2000's base clock is 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz, while the K4000M runs at a fixed 601 MHz.

The P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K4000M also supports DirectX 12 but at the lower 11_0 feature level, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. The P2000 also supports FP16 compute at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the K4000M has no FP16 capability listed.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the architecture. Memory capacity favors the P2000 at 5 GB versus 4 GB, but the K4000M has a wider 256-bit bus compared to the P2000's 160-bit. Despite the narrower bus, the P2000's faster memory clock (1752 MHz versus 700 MHz) results in significantly higher bandwidth: 140.2 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s.

Compute resources differ in interesting ways. The P2000 has more shading units (1024 vs 960) and more ROPs (40 vs 32), but the K4000M has more TMUs (80 vs 64). The P2000's pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s is nearly five times the K4000M's 12.02 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: 94.72 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is dramatically different: the P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS, while the K4000M manages 1,153.9 GFLOPS (approximately 1.15 TFLOPS). Power consumption is also inverted from expectations: the P2000 has a 75W TDP, while the K4000M draws 100W, despite being far slower. The P2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250W, while the K4000M is an MXM module for portable devices.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are lopsided. The P2000 scores 20125, while the K4000M scores 5986. The deltaPct of 236.2 percent means the P2000 is more than three times faster in this compute test. This is consistent with the raw specification differences: the P2000 has over 2.6 times the FP32 throughput, nearly 1.6 times the memory bandwidth, and over 4.9 times the pixel rate.

Looking at the P2000's other benchmark scores provides context for its OpenCL result. Its Passmark G3D score of 6956 and GPU Compute score of 2933 suggest balanced performance across graphics and compute workloads. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 23566 indicates strong modern API performance. The K4000M has no such additional data points, so its single OpenCL score of 5986 must stand as its only measured capability.

The P2000's nearest rivals in average score – the GeForce MX230 (6077) and RTX A400 (6078) – are within 0.5 percent of its average. This suggests that while the P2000 excels in OpenCL, its overall average is tempered by lower scores in other tests. The K4000M's nearest rivals – the FirePro W4100 (5987) and Quadro K4000 (5982) – are essentially tied with it, confirming its position as a mid-range Kepler-era part.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU by a wide margin. Its 236.2 percent lead in OpenCL performance, combined with higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, and a more advanced architecture, make it the obvious choice for any workload that leverages these capabilities. The P2000's 75W TDP is also lower than the K4000M's 100W, which is remarkable given its performance advantage.

The K4000M, however, is not without its own context. It is an MXM module, meaning it was designed for mobile workstations, while the P2000 is a desktop single-slot card. The K4000M's wider 256-bit memory bus and higher TMU count are its only specification advantages, but these do not translate into benchmark wins. Its position among rivals like the FirePro W4100 and Quadro K4000 suggests it was a capable part for its era, but that era has passed.

For users with workloads that rely on OpenCL compute, the P2000 is the only rational choice. For those constrained to MXM-form-factor laptops, the K4000M remains an option, but its performance ceiling is clearly lower. The P2000's support for modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) also makes it more future-proof than the K4000M's Vulkan 1.2 and DirectX 12 (11_0). The data leaves no ambiguity: choose the P2000 whenever form factor permits.