GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M represent two distinct eras of professional mobile graphics, separated by a generation of architectural evolution. The M4000, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, is a desktop-oriented card, while the 4000M is a Fermi-based mobile module. Benchmark data reveals a stark performance gulf, but the two cards serve fundamentally different purposes and physical constraints. This analysis examines the data to understand where each card stands in its respective context.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M4000 than the Quadro 4000M in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 points, while the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 points. This results in a delta of 266.9% in favor of the M4000, making it over 3.6 times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Which GPU holds a better standing among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile. Despite the massive performance difference in raw scores, their percentile rankings are quite close, indicating that the 4000M was a high performer in its own generation.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Quadro M4000?

A: The data shows the closest competitors to the M4000 are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (average score 5,483, delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon 610M (average score 5,444, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (average score 5,501, delta -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (average score 5,508, delta -0.7%).

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Quadro 4000M?

A: The nearest rivals for the 4000M include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (average score 5,236, delta -0.5%), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (average score 5,161, delta 1%), the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (average score 5,154, delta 1.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (average score 5,284, delta -1.4%).

Q: What are the physical form factor differences between the two cards?

A: The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot card with a 241 mm length, 111 mm height, and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector. In contrast, the Quadro 4000M is an MXM Module with no dedicated power connectors and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for laptops.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two architectures?

A: The Quadro M4000 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm process node at TSMC. The Quadro 4000M uses the older Fermi architecture on a larger 40 nm process node, also from TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures that highlight the generational leap between them. The Quadro M4000 is based on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.1M / mm². In contrast, the Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip with the older Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process. This older design contains only 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, resulting in a significantly lower transistor density of 5.9M / mm².

The compute capabilities diverge sharply due to these architectural differences. The M4000 features 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 4000M is far more modest, with 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a massive difference in theoretical throughput: the M4000 delivers 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the 4000M manages only 638.4 GFLOPS. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern, with the M4000 achieving 49.47 GPixel/s and 80.39 GTexel/s versus the 4000M's 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s.

Feature support also differs. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The memory subsystems are also generational apart, with the M4000 using faster GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective compared to the 4000M's GDDR5 at 2.5 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is overwhelmingly one-sided in raw compute performance. The Quadro M4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 19,118 versus the 4000M's 5,211. This represents a 266.9% advantage for the M4000, making it the clear winner for any GPU-accelerated compute task, such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference.

However, the Quadro 4000M wins in the context of its form factor and power envelope. As an MXM Module with a 100 W TDP and no external power connectors, it is designed for mobile workstations. The M4000, with its 120 W TDP, 241 mm length, and 1x 6-pin power connector, is a desktop card. Therefore, the 4000M is the only viable option for a laptop chassis, despite its significantly lower performance. The 4000M's advantage is not in speed but in its physical integration into portable systems.

The M4000 also holds a slight edge in percentile ranking, sitting at the 32nd percentile versus the 4000M's 30th. This indicates that while the M4000 is faster, both cards were positioned similarly relative to their contemporary GPU landscapes.

Specification Differences

The specification table below highlights the key differences between the two cards, excluding fields where they are identical (like manufacturer and foundry).

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | GM204 | GF104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 336 |

| TMUs | 104 | 56 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 6.650 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 26.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.573 TFLOPS | 638.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 120 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | null |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2011-02-21 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only a single benchmark where both cards have been tested, making the comparison straightforward but limited. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000.

• Geekbench OpenCL: The M4000 scores 19,118 points, while the 4000M scores 5,211 points. This gives the M4000 a 266.9% performance advantage. This delta is enormous, indicating that the M4000 offers more than three and a half times the compute throughput of the 4000M in this particular workload. The score difference is so large that it overshadows the 4000M's lower TDP of 100 W versus the M4000's 120 W, as the performance-per-watt is clearly in favor of the newer architecture.

The lack of other shared benchmarks means we cannot analyze gaming or professional application performance directly. However, the OpenCL result is a strong proxy for general-purpose GPU compute, where the M4000's 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 power and 192.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth provide a massive advantage over the 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS and 80.00 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear verdict for different use cases. For any user requiring maximum compute performance in a desktop workstation, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the undisputed choice. Its 266.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 8 GB of memory and higher pixel/texture rates, makes it vastly more capable for demanding professional workloads like 3D rendering, video editing, and scientific simulations. The M4000's higher percentile ranking (32nd vs 30th) reinforces its superiority in absolute performance.

Conversely, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the only option for a mobile workstation. Its MXM Module form factor and 100 W TDP make it physically compatible with laptops, a task the single-slot, 241 mm-long M4000 cannot perform. While its performance is drastically lower, the 4000M was a capable card in its own generation, as evidenced by its 30th percentile standing. It is the correct choice for users who prioritize portability and need a professional-grade GPU that fits inside a notebook chassis.

In essence, this comparison is not about which card is "better" in a vacuum, but which is appropriate for the intended platform. The M4000 wins on every performance metric, but the 4000M wins on physical integration. The choice is dictated by whether the system is a stationary desktop or a portable laptop.