NVIDIA Quadro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly along generational and workload lines. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Quadro P400, with margins that are not close. In the two common tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the M4000 leads by 349.9% and 381.3%, respectively. That is a dominant sweep, and the P400 has no recorded counter-wins in the database.

However, the win condition depends on context. The M4000 is a larger, hungrier card from the Maxwell generation, built for heavier professional workloads. The P400 is a slim, low-power Pascal card aimed at compact systems and basic visualization tasks. If the workload is compute-heavy or memory-bandwidth sensitive, the M4000 is the clear choice. If the workload is light, power-constrained, or space-constrained, the P400's smaller footprint and lower power draw make it the practical option despite losing every benchmark.

The database shows the M4000's average benchmark score at 5467, which places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. The P400's average score is 4684, placing it in the 27th percentile. Both are mid-to-low tier in the overall GPU landscape, but the M4000 sits roughly 16.7% higher in average score. The nearest rivals for the M4000 include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483 average, 0.3% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508 average, 0.7% higher), indicating the M4000 is competitive with entry-level mobile parts. The P400's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657 average, 0.6% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628 average, 1.2% lower), showing it sits slightly above those parts.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The M4000 uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The P400 uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. This node shrink is significant: the P400 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The M4000 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, which is a density of 13.1 million per mm². The Pascal part is nearly twice as dense.

The raw compute resources tell a different story. The M4000 has 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 6.5x difference in shading units, a 6.5x difference in TMUs, and a 4x difference in ROPs. The M4000's pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 20.03 GPixel/s for the P400, and its texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS for the M4000 versus 641.0 GFLOPS for the P400, a factor of roughly four.

Memory is another major split. The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 32.06 GB/s. That is a 6x bandwidth advantage for the M4000. The P400's memory clock is 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the M4000's is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The M4000 also has a longer board at 241 mm (9.5 inches) versus 150 mm (5.9 inches) for the P400.

The P400 does have one architectural edge: it supports half-precision FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the M4000 has no recorded FP16 figure. The P400 also uses DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, versus DisplayPort 1.2 on the M4000. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmarks between these cards, and the M4000 wins both by enormous margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the M4000 scores 19118 against the P400's 4249. The delta is 349.9% in favor of the M4000. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a four-to-one result. OpenCL performance is heavily influenced by shading unit count and memory bandwidth, and the M4000 has both in far greater quantity.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the M4000 scores 24640 against the P400's 5119, a delta of 381.3%. Vulkan is a lower-level API that exposes the hardware more directly, so the M4000's larger execution resource pool translates into an even larger relative lead. The gap here is wider than in OpenCL, suggesting the M4000's architecture scales better under Vulkan's draw-call and compute model.

To put these numbers in perspective, the M4000's OpenCL score is roughly 4.5 times the P400's, and its Vulkan score is roughly 4.8 times higher. The P400's only recorded benchmarks are these two; the M4000 has additional data from 3DMark, Passmark, and compute tests, but those are not shared with the P400 in the head-to-head set. The M4000's other scores include 680 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 6680 in Passmark G3D, and 2660 in Passmark GPU Compute, but no comparable P400 figures exist in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The M4000 has 1664 shading units, while the P400 has 256. This is a 6.5x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M4000 has 192.3 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The P400 has 32.06 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The M4000 provides six times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is smaller and uses less power?

A: The P400. It is 150 mm long (5.9 inches) with a 30 W TDP and no power connector. The M4000 is 241 mm long (9.5 inches) with a 120 W TDP and requires one 6-pin power connector.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P400 adds FP16 support at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), which the M4000 does not record.

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The M4000 scores 24640 versus the P400's 5119, a 381.3% lead. The M4000 wins by a wider margin in Vulkan than in OpenCL.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The M4000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483 average, 0.3% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508 average, 0.7% higher). The P400's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727 average, 0.9% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628 average, 1.2% lower).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on performance: the Quadro M4000 is in a different class from the Quadro P400. Every recorded benchmark shows the M4000 at roughly four to five times the P400's score. The M4000 has more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, four times the FP32 throughput, and six times the memory bandwidth. If the job requires compute, rendering, or large data sets, the M4000 is the only choice from these two.

The P400's case rests entirely on physical and power characteristics. It is a single-slot, 150 mm card with a 30 W TDP and no auxiliary power connector. The M4000 is a 241 mm card with a 120 W TDP and a 6-pin connector. In a small form factor workstation or a system with a limited power supply, the P400 will fit where the M4000 will not. Its 14 nm Pascal process gives it a much higher transistor density (25.0M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm²), which is a sign of architectural efficiency, but that efficiency does not translate into winning benchmarks against the larger Maxwell chip.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. The M4000 sits at 5467 average, about 16.7% above the P400's 4684. Both cards are near the bottom of the percentile rankings (32nd and 27th), so neither is a high-performance part by modern standards. But within this pairing, the M4000 is the stronger compute device, and the P400 is the compact, low-power alternative.

There is no scenario in the data where the P400 outperforms the M4000. There are scenarios where the P400 is the only card that physically fits. For users with space and power headroom, the M4000 is the superior product. For users with strict size or power limits, the P400 is the functional choice, but they must accept a large performance penalty.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 | NVIDIA Quadro P400 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | GP107 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | Quadro Pascal (Px000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 1228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1252 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 32.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 256 |

| TMUs | 104 | 16 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.47 GPixel/s | 20.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.39 GTexel/s | 20.03 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.573 TFLOPS | 641.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 120 W | 30 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 150 mm (5.9 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-06-28 | 2017-02-06 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Quadro Volta |