NVIDIA Quadro M4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

The benchmark data for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 reveals a generational chasm. The RTX 4000 is unequivocally the dominant performer in every measurable category, delivering roughly 3.7 times the compute throughput of the M4000M. The M4000M, a Maxwell-era mobile part, is a legacy product that cannot compete with the Turing-based RTX 4000, which offers dramatically higher raw compute, double the memory, and advanced feature support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has a higher average benchmark score of 17789, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has an average score of 20480. It is important to note that the M4000M's average is calculated from only two Geekbench tests, whereas the RTX 4000's score is derived from a wider range of tests including Passmark and 3DMark.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The data shows a decisive victory for the RTX 4000. It scores 74540 points, which is 73.2% higher than the M4000M's score of 19989 points.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The M4000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using a 28 nm process, while the RTX 4000 uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process. The RTX 4000 also features dedicated RT (ray tracing) cores and Tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the M4000M.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX 4000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5. The RTX 4000's memory bandwidth is 416.0 GB/s, compared to 160.4 GB/s for the M4000M.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the RTX 4000?

A: The launch MSRP of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is 899 USD.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The RTX 4000 leads in both metrics. It has a pixel rate of 98.88 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s, whereas the M4000M achieves 64.83 GPixel/s and 81.04 GTexel/s, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by two full generations of NVIDIA architecture. The Quadro M4000M is based on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro RTX 4000 is built on the TU104 chip with the Turing architecture, fabricated on a more advanced 12 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink allows the RTX 4000 to pack 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, compared to the M4000M's 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. Consequently, the transistor density is significantly higher on the newer part, at 25.0M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm².

The most profound functional difference is the inclusion of specialized hardware in the RTX 4000. It features 36 RT cores and 288 Tensor cores, which are dedicated to ray tracing and AI acceleration respectively. The M4000M has no such hardware, relying solely on its standard shader units. The streaming processor configuration also differs substantially. The RTX 4000 has 2304 shading units and 144 texture mapping units (TMUs), while the M4000M has 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs. Both cards share the same ROP count of 64, but the RTX 4000's higher clock speeds and shader count give it a massive throughput advantage.

The API support also reflects the generational gap. The RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, showing that the older card remains viable for those APIs. The memory subsystem is another key divider. The RTX 4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 416.0 GB/s. The M4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. This 2.6x bandwidth advantage is crucial for modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split in applicability. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded, making it the superior choice for any performance-sensitive task. Its lead in compute workloads is absolute. The RTX 4000's FP32 performance of 7.119 TFLOPS, coupled with its FP16 capability of 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1), makes it suitable for complex simulations, rendering, and machine learning inference. The dedicated RT and Tensor cores further cement its position for ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated workflows.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M, on the other hand, has no winning categories in the benchmark data. Its strengths lie in its legacy status. As an end-of-life mobile product from 2015, its only advantage is its low power profile. It has a TDP of 100 W, compared to the RTX 4000's 160 W. It is also a portable MXM module, which means it is designed for mobile workstations where power and space are at a premium. The data suggests that it is only relevant for running older applications that do not require the compute power or modern feature set of the RTX 4000. For any current or demanding workload, the RTX 4000 is the only logical choice.

Specification Differences

The specifications for these two GPUs diverge on nearly every core metric. The process node is a fundamental difference, with the M4000M at 28 nm and the RTX 4000 at 12 nm. The transistor count is more than double on the RTX 4000, at 13,600 million versus 5,200 million. The die size is also larger on the RTX 4000 at 545 mm², compared to 398 mm² for the M4000M.

Clock speeds show a significant improvement for the newer card. The RTX 4000 has a base clock of 1005 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz, while the M4000M operates at a base of 975 MHz and a boost of 1013 MHz. The memory clock is also faster, with the RTX 4000 running at 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M4000M.

Memory capacity and type are other major differentiators. The RTX 4000 comes with 8 GB of GDDR6, while the M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5. The bus width is the same at 256-bit, but the bandwidth is not, with the RTX 4000 achieving 416.0 GB/s against the M4000M's 160.4 GB/s. The compute units also differ, with the RTX 4000 having 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to the M4000M's 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs.

The RTX 4000 is the only card with RT cores (36) and Tensor cores (288). The power draw is higher for the RTX 4000 at 160 W, while the M4000M is rated at 100 W. The physical form factors are also distinct: the RTX 4000 is a single-slot card with a length of 241 mm and a height of 111 mm, while the M4000M is an MXM module. The RTX 4000 requires a single 8-pin power connector and suggests a 450 W power supply, while the M4000M has no power connectors. Display outputs are also different, with the RTX 4000 offering 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, whereas the M4000M's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is a one-sided affair, with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 winning both recorded tests. The dominant victory comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the RTX 4000 scores 78844 points, while the M4000M scores 20971 points. This represents a performance delta of 73.4% in favor of the RTX 4000. This test highlights the massive difference in raw compute and driver efficiency between the Turing and Maxwell architectures.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a similar outcome. The RTX 4000 achieves a score of 74540, which is 73.2% higher than the M4000M's score of 19989. This consistent 3.7x performance advantage across both compute APIs indicates that the RTX 4000 is not just faster in a specific scenario, but fundamentally more powerful at a hardware level. The M4000M's scores are so low that they place it in a different performance class entirely. The data shows that the M4000M is a legacy part that cannot handle modern compute loads, while the RTX 4000 is a capable workstation GPU, even though it is also end-of-life. The RTX 4000's additional benchmark results, such as its Passmark G3D score of 15117 and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1873, further confirm its superior standing.

The Verdict

The performance data makes the choice unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior product in every measurable benchmark, making it the only viable option for professional work. Its 73.4% lead in the Vulkan compute test and 73.2% lead in the OpenCL test demonstrate a full generational leap in processing power. Professionals requiring high FP32 throughput, ray tracing capabilities, or AI acceleration must choose the RTX 4000, as the M4000M lacks the necessary hardware and raw performance.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is a product from a bygone era. Its end-of-life status and 2015 release date place it well behind modern demands. The only scenarios where it would be selected are those that require its specific MXM form factor for a legacy mobile workstation, or where the lower 100 W power draw is a absolute constraint. However, for any task that involves modern rendering, simulation, or compute workloads, the data shows that it will be a severe bottleneck. The RTX 4000, despite being from 2018, remains a much more relevant and capable part, offering a level of performance that the M4000M cannot approach. The verdict is clear: choose the RTX 4000 for performance, and only consider the M4000M for niche, legacy hardware requirements.