NVIDIA Quadro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000 are two professional workstation cards from different architectural generations. The data shows a clear split: the P2000 wins the majority of benchmark comparisons, while the M4000 holds onto a few specific strengths. This analysis breaks down where each card dominates, the architectural reasons behind those results, and which workloads favor which GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show a decisive overall advantage for the Quadro P2000, which takes 6 out of 9 head-to-head tests. The P2000's wins are concentrated in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. It leads in Passmark GPU Compute by a significant 10.3%, in DirectX 9 by 9.7%, and in DirectX 12 by 7.7%. It also wins in Geekbench OpenCL (5.3%), Passmark G3D (4.1%), and DirectX 10 (3%). These results point to a card that handles raw parallel processing and newer graphics pipelines more efficiently.

The Quadro M4000, meanwhile, wins 3 tests, but they are important ones. It takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a 4.4% lead, the Passmark DirectX 11 test with a 4.1% lead, and the Passmark G2D (2D graphics) test with a 7% lead. This suggests the M4000 retains an edge in specific legacy API scenarios and in pure 2D desktop rendering tasks. For users working primarily in Vulkan-based applications or older DirectX 11 titles, the M4000 is not obsolete.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the P2000's position. The database lists the P2000 with an average score of 6049, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The M4000 sits lower with an average of 5467, in the 32nd percentile. The P2000's nearest rivals include the GeForce MX230 and RTX A400, both within 0.5% of its score, while the M4000 competes with the Radeon R7 M440 and GeForce GTX 765M, which are within 0.7%.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct design philosophies from NVIDIA. The P2000 uses the GP106 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The M4000 uses the GM204 chip from the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture, on a larger 28 nm process. This node difference is a core reason for the performance gap; the smaller process allows the P2000 to achieve higher efficiency per watt.

The chip sizes tell a contrasting story. The M4000's GM204 die is physically larger at 398 mm² and packs 5,200 million transistors. The P2000's GP106 die is smaller at 200 mm² with 4,400 million transistors. However, the P2000 achieves a much higher transistor density of 22.0 million per mm², compared to the M4000's 13.1 million per mm². This density advantage is a direct result of the newer manufacturing node.

In terms of raw resources, the M4000 appears stronger on paper. It has 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The P2000 has fewer of each: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Yet the P2000 still wins in most compute benchmarks. This is likely due to its higher clock speeds. The P2000 runs at a base clock of 1076 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, while the M4000's clock data is not recorded in the database. The P2000 also posts higher pixel and texture rates, with 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s, versus the M4000's 49.47 GPixel/s and 80.39 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration also differs significantly. The P2000 comes with 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, resulting in 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000's larger memory pool and higher bandwidth make it better suited for frame buffer heavy workloads, despite its lower compute performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory belongs to the P2000 in the Passmark GPU Compute test, where it scores 2933 against the M4000's 2660. That is a 10.3% lead, showing a clear advantage in general-purpose compute tasks. The P2000 also dominates legacy API tests, scoring 124 in Passmark DirectX 9 versus 113 for the M4000, a 9.7% gap. In the modern DirectX 12 test, the P2000 scores 28 against 26, a 7.7% win.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the P2000 ahead at 20125 versus 19118, a 5.3% margin. The Passmark G3D test, which measures overall 3D graphics performance, also goes to the P2000: 6956 versus 6680, a 4.1% advantage. The DirectX 10 test is close, with the P2000 scoring 34 against 33, a 3% difference.

The M4000's wins are narrower or more specific. Its best showing is in Passmark G2D, scoring 673 against the P2000's 626, a 7% lead in 2D rendering performance. In Geekbench Vulkan, the M4000 scores 24640 versus 23566, a 4.4% advantage that indicates stronger Vulkan API utilization. The DirectX 11 test also goes to the M4000, with a score of 49 against 47, a 4.1% difference. These results suggest the M4000 retains relevance in specific API environments even though it loses the overall compute battle.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in compute workloads?

A: The Quadro P2000. It wins the Passmark GPU Compute test with a score of 2933, which is 10.3% higher than the M4000's 2660. It also leads in Geekbench OpenCL with 20125 versus 19118.

Q: Does the M4000 have any advantage in modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, specifically in Vulkan. The M4000 scores 24640 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 4.4% higher than the P2000's 23566. The P2000, however, wins in DirectX 12 with a 7.7% lead.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M4000. It has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 has 5 GB on a 160-bit bus, providing 140.2 GB/s.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, putting it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The M4000 averages 5467, placing it in the 32nd percentile. The P2000's average is roughly 10.6% higher.

Q: Which card wins in DirectX 9 and DirectX 11?

A: The P2000 wins DirectX 9 with a score of 124 versus 113, a 9.7% lead. The M4000 wins DirectX 11 with a score of 49 versus 47, a 4.1% lead.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The P2000 is shorter at 196 mm (7.7 inches), while the M4000 is 241 mm (9.5 inches). Both are single-slot cards with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several key differences between the two cards. The chip and architecture differ: the P2000 uses GP106 on Pascal, while the M4000 uses GM204 on Maxwell 2.0. The process node is 16 nm for the P2000 and 28 nm for the M4000. Transistor counts are 4,400 million for the P2000 and 5,200 million for the M4000, with die sizes of 200 mm² and 398 mm² respectively.

Clock speeds differ, with the P2000 listing a base clock of 1076 MHz and a boost of 1480 MHz, while the M4000 does not list base or boost clocks in the database. Memory clocks also differ: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the P2000 versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the M4000. Memory size, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the M4000: 8 GB, 256-bit, and 192.3 GB/s versus 5 GB, 160-bit, and 140.2 GB/s.

Core counts are higher on the M4000: 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs versus 1024, 64, and 40 on the P2000. Pixel and texture rates, however, favor the P2000 at 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is also higher for the P2000 at 3.031 TFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS. The P2000 lists FP16 performance at 47.36 GFLOPS, while the M4000 lists none. Power requirements vary: the P2000 has a TDP of 75 W with no power connectors, the M4000 has 120 W and a 1x 6-pin connector. The P2000 features DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the M4000 uses DisplayPort 1.2. Release dates differ, with the P2000 launching in 2017 and the M4000 in 2015.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro P2000 as the stronger card for most professional tasks. It wins in compute, DirectX 12, DirectX 9, OpenCL, and overall 3D performance. Its higher FP32 throughput, faster clocks, and modern architecture give it a clear edge in rendering and simulation workloads. The P2000 also consumes less power, with a 75 W TDP versus the M4000's 120 W, and requires no external power connector, making it easier to integrate into dense systems.

The Quadro M4000 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrower. It offers more VRAM (8 GB versus 5 GB) and higher memory bandwidth, which can be decisive for large texture sets or high-resolution display configurations. Its wins in Vulkan, DirectX 11, and 2D performance show it still handles specific software stacks competently. Users running older OpenGL or Vulkan-based applications may find the M4000 adequate.

For a new purchase or upgrade, the P2000 is the practical choice. Its benchmark wins are more numerous and its compute lead is substantial. The M4000 makes sense only if the workload specifically requires its larger memory pool or if the software relies on the APIs where it wins. The average scores confirm the P2000's overall superiority, and the architectural advantages of the Pascal node are clear. Choose the P2000 for general workstation use; pick the M4000 only for memory-bound legacy tasks.