NVIDIA Quadro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M records an average benchmark score of 6481, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 records 5467. The M5000M sits at the 37th percentile among all GPUs, whereas the M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The M5000M scores 22920 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to 19118 for the M4000, a 19.9% advantage. This is the largest single delta recorded in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Are both cards based on the same physical chip?

A: Yes. Both the M5000M and the M4000 use the GM204 chip, built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 5,200 million transistors and a 398 mm² die size.

Q: Which GPU wins in 2D graphics tests?

A: The M4000 wins the Passmark G2D test by a wide margin, scoring 673 versus 476 for the M5000M, a 29.3% difference. This is the only test the M4000 wins in the head-to-head set.

Q: Do the two cards have identical memory configurations?

A: Both have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the memory clocks differ. The M5000M runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the M4000 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The M4000 has 1664 shading units and 104 TMUs, while the M5000M has 1536 shading units and 96 TMUs. Despite having fewer units, the M5000M achieves higher FP32 throughput and texture rate.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the same GM204 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Transistor count is identical at 5,200 million, and die size is identical at 398 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The architectural lineage differs slightly in naming: the M5000M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) mobile generation, while the M4000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) desktop generation.

The key architectural divergence is in the execution resource configuration. The M4000 actually carries more shading units (1664 versus 1536) and more texture mapping units (104 versus 96), but the M5000M compensates with higher clock behavior. The M5000M has a recorded base clock of 962 MHz and a boost clock of 1051 MHz, whereas the M4000's clock fields are not recorded in the database. As a result, the M5000M reaches 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 and a texture rate of 100.9 GTexel/s, while the M4000 is limited to 2.573 TFLOPS and 80.39 GTexel/s. Pixel rate also differs: the M5000M delivers 67.26 GPixel/s versus 49.47 GPixel/s for the M4000, even though both have 64 ROPs.

Memory architecture is another point of separation. Both use 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the M4000's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) yielding 192.3 GB/s, while the M5000M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) yielding 160.4 GB/s. This gives the desktop card a 19.9% bandwidth advantage, which aligns with its win in memory-sensitive 2D tests.

Form factor and integration differ substantially. The M5000M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and requires no power connectors, drawing a 100 W TDP. The M4000 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requiring one 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, with a 120 W TDP. Display outputs also differ: the M4000 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the M5000M's outputs are portable device dependent.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither lists FP16 performance. Both are end-of-life products, with the M4000 released on 2015-06-28 and the M5000M released on 2015-08-17.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The M5000M wins 8 of the 9 recorded head-to-head tests. Its largest victory is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 22920 against 19118, a 19.9% margin. This suggests a substantial compute advantage for the mobile card in OpenCL workloads.

In DirectX tests, the M5000M leads across all four generations. Passmark DirectX 9 scores 119 versus 113 (5.3% ahead), DirectX 10 scores 35 versus 33 (6.1% ahead), DirectX 11 scores 54 versus 49 (10.2% ahead), and DirectX 12 scores 29 versus 26 (11.5% ahead). The growing margin with newer API generations is notable, with the DirectX 12 delta nearly double the DirectX 9 delta.

In Vulkan, the gap narrows considerably. The M5000M scores 24875 versus 24640 for the M4000, a 1% lead. This is the closest contest in the entire comparison and indicates that both GPUs deliver nearly equivalent Vulkan performance despite the M5000M's overall compute advantage.

In the Passmark 3D suite, the M5000M wins G3D with 7062 versus 6680 (5.7% ahead) and GPU compute with 2756 versus 2660 (3.6% ahead). These wins are modest but consistent with the overall pattern of M5000M superiority.

The single exception is Passmark G2D, where the M4000 scores 673 versus 476, a 29.3% advantage. This is the largest margin in either direction across all tests. The M4000's higher memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s) likely explains its dominance in this 2D workload.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results: the M5000M averages 6481 versus 5467 for the M4000. The M5000M's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6476, 0.1% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493, 0.2% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513, 0.5% higher), and Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6554, 1.1% higher). The M4000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 0.3% higher), AMD Radeon 610M (5444, 0.4% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 0.6% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, 0.7% higher).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share their chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, transistor density, memory size, memory type, memory bus width, ROP count, API support, and production status. The differences are as follows:

• Shading units: M5000M has 1536, M4000 has 1664.
• TMUs: M5000M has 96, M4000 has 104.
• Base clock: M5000M at 962 MHz, M4000 not recorded.
• Boost clock: M5000M at 1051 MHz, M4000 not recorded.
• Memory clock: M5000M at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), M4000 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: M5000M at 160.4 GB/s, M4000 at 192.3 GB/s.
• Pixel rate: M5000M at 67.26 GPixel/s, M4000 at 49.47 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: M5000M at 100.9 GTexel/s, M4000 at 80.39 GTexel/s.
• FP32: M5000M at 3.229 TFLOPS, M4000 at 2.573 TFLOPS.
• TDP: M5000M at 100 W, M4000 at 120 W.
• Slot width: M5000M is MXM Module, M4000 is Single-slot.
• Power connectors: M5000M has none, M4000 has 1x 6-pin.
• Suggested PSU: M5000M not recorded, M4000 at 300 W.
• Bus interface: M5000M is MXM-B (3.0), M4000 is PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display outputs: M5000M is portable device dependent, M4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2.
• Dimensions: M5000M not recorded, M4000 is 241 mm x 111 mm.
• Release date: M5000M on 2015-08-17, M4000 on 2015-06-28.
• Generation: M5000M is Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M), M4000 is Quadro Maxwell (Mx000).

Where Each One Wins

The M5000M is the clear winner in raw compute and 3D workloads. Its 19.9% OpenCL lead makes it the stronger choice for GPU compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, and its consistent margins across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 (ranging from 5.3% to 11.5%) indicate broad superiority in legacy and modern DirectX applications alike. The 5.7% G3D win and 3.6% GPU compute win further support its position for general 3D rendering and compute-heavy workflows. Its lower TDP of 100 W and lack of power connectors also make it suitable for mobile MXM platforms where power delivery is constrained.

The M4000's strengths lie in specific niches. Its 29.3% G2D advantage makes it the better option for 2D-heavy tasks such as desktop composition, image editing, or multi-display productivity work where raw 3D throughput matters less. The higher memory bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s supports this 2D superiority. The M4000 also offers a desktop form factor with PCIe 3.0 x16, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and a single-slot design, which may be preferable for fixed workstations requiring multiple display connections without the constraints of a mobile chassis.

In Vulkan, the two are nearly tied at 1% apart, so neither holds a meaningful advantage for Vulkan-based applications. The M4000's extra shading units and TMUs do not translate into wins in any 3D or compute test, indicating that the M5000M's clock behavior more than compensates for its lower unit counts.

For users prioritizing compute, DirectX performance, or mobile integration, the M5000M is the stronger candidate. For users prioritizing 2D throughput, desktop connectivity, or higher memory bandwidth, the M4000 has clear appeal. The overall benchmark average favors the M5000M by 1014 points, a 18.5% advantage over the M4000's average.