NVIDIA Quadro K4000M vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA T600 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The T600 scores 27,875, while the K4000M manages 5,986. That is a delta of 365.7%, meaning the T600 delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput in this test. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. The T600's average benchmark score of 7,035 also places it ahead of the K4000M's 5,986, a gap of roughly 17.5% across the database's recorded results.

Looking at the T600's broader profile, its 7,035 average score puts it at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970 at 7,157, which is 1.7% faster, and the GeForce GTX 680M at 7,023, which trails by just 0.2%. The K4000M, by contrast, sits at the 34th percentile with an average of 5,986. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 is effectively tied, the Quadro K4000 at 5,982 is 0.1% behind, and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 is 0.2% ahead. The K4000M is competitive within its own class, but that class is far below the T600's performance tier.

The T600 also shows a much wider range of benchmark data in the database. It has recorded scores across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, and compute tests. The K4000M only has a single OpenCL entry. This makes direct comparisons limited, but the one head-to-head result is unambiguous. The T600's compute advantage is substantial, and its average score confirms that the OpenCL result is not an outlier.

Architecture Differences

The T600 is built on Turing architecture using the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The K4000M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. The process shrink is significant: the T600 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The K4000M has 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, for a density of only 12.0 million per mm². The T600 nearly doubles the transistor density, which explains how it achieves higher performance with far lower power consumption.

The T600's base clock is 735 MHz with a boost of 1,335 MHz. The K4000M runs at a fixed 601 MHz with no boost. Memory differs as well: the T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1,250 MHz, or 10 Gbps effective, over a 128-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 700 MHz, or 2.8 Gbps effective, over a wider 256-bit bus, yet only achieves 89.60 GB/s. The T600's narrower bus is more than compensated by the much faster memory technology, giving it 78.6% more bandwidth.

The shading resources tell a nuanced story. The K4000M has more shading units (960 versus 640) and more texture mapping units (80 versus 40), but the T600's higher clocks and newer architecture flip the performance equation. The T600 produces 42.72 GPixel/s of pixel rate versus 12.02 GPixel/s for the K4000M, a 255% advantage. Texture rate is closer: 53.40 GTexel/s for the T600 versus 48.08 GTexel/s for the K4000M, a 11.1% lead for the newer card. In raw FP32 compute, the T600 delivers 1.709 TFLOPS, while the K4000M manages 1,153.9 GFLOPS, which is about 1.15 TFLOPS. The T600 is roughly 48% ahead in FP32. The T600 also supports FP16 at 3.418 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the K4000M lacks entirely.

Power efficiency is another major divide. The T600 is rated at 40 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the K4000M draws 100 W. The T600 achieves 1.709 TFLOPS at 40 W, while the K4000M needs 100 W for 1,153.9 GFLOPS. In terms of performance per watt, the T600 is dramatically more efficient. The T600 is also a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the K4000M uses an MXM module form factor, which is designed for laptops and portable devices.

The API support also differs. The T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The T600 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the K4000M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the host system.

Where Each One Wins

The T600 wins in every meaningful category that can be measured from the database. Its OpenCL score is 365.7% higher, its average benchmark score is 17.5% higher, its pixel rate is 255% higher, its texture rate is 11.1% higher, and its FP32 compute is about 48% higher. It has more memory bandwidth, a smaller die, lower power draw, and newer API support. For any workload that relies on compute throughput, rendering, or general GPU acceleration, the T600 is the clear choice.

The K4000M does have some structural advantages that are worth noting. It has 960 shading units and 80 TMUs, which are 50% and 100% more than the T600, respectively. Its 256-bit memory bus is twice as wide. In theory, these features could benefit workloads that are highly parallel and memory-latency sensitive. However, the recorded data shows no benchmark where the K4000M outperforms the T600. The single OpenCL result is a total rout, and the K4000M's average score is significantly lower. The wider bus and higher unit counts do not translate into a win in actual measured performance.

The K4000M's MXM form factor is a differentiator in a practical sense. It is designed for portable devices, whereas the T600 is a desktop-style single-slot card. For systems that require an MXM module, the K4000M is the only option between these two. That is a compatibility consideration, not a performance one. The database does not record any MXM-specific benchmarks, so this cannot be quantified, but it is a real distinction in hardware design.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided. The NVIDIA T600 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M in the only shared benchmark by 365.7%, and its average score across the database is 17.5% higher. The T600 is also newer, more power-efficient, and built on a more advanced architecture. The K4000M's only advantages are its higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and MXM form factor, none of which produce a measured performance win.

For anyone choosing between these two based on the recorded data, the T600 is the obvious pick. It is faster in compute, has higher bandwidth, supports newer APIs, and does all of this at 40 W compared to 100 W. The K4000M should only be considered if the host system specifically requires an MXM module, since the T600 cannot fit in that form factor. Outside of that constraint, the T600 wins on every measurable metric.

The T600's percentile ranking of 39 versus the K4000M's 34 also reflects the overall positioning. The T600 sits slightly above the middle of the database's GPU population, while the K4000M sits below it. The T600's nearest rivals are all within 1.7%, which suggests it is a competitive modern entry-level workstation card. The K4000M's nearest rivals are within 0.2%, but that cluster is at a much lower absolute score level.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875, which is 365.7% higher than the Quadro K4000M's 5,986.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The T600 has an average score of 7,035, while the K4000M has an average score of 5,986.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The T600 has 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the K4000M has 89.60 GB/s using GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, compared to 640 on the T600, but the T600 still achieves higher measured performance.

Q: What are their power ratings?

A: The T600 is rated at 40 W TDP, while the K4000M is rated at 100 W TDP.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T600 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |

| Chip | TU117 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 735 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,335 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 1,250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective | 700 MHz, 2.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 89.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 960 |

| TMUs | 40 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 42.72 GPixel/s | 12.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 53.40 GTexel/s | 48.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.709 TFLOPS | 1,153.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 40 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | null |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2012-05-31 |