NVIDIA Quadro M4000M vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile and NVIDIA Quadro M4000M represent two distinct eras of mobile workstation graphics, separated by roughly six years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap, with the newer Ampere-based RTX A4000 Mobile dominating the older Maxwell-based Quadro M4000M across every available metric. This analysis quantifies the magnitude of that generational leap, examines where each GPU retains relevance, and contextualizes their positions within the broader GPU landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks shared between these GPUs are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and in both, the RTX A4000 Mobile delivers a crushing victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A4000 Mobile scores 97,178, while the Quadro M4000M manages just 19,989. This represents a 386.2% advantage for the Ampere part — a nearly five-fold improvement in compute throughput. Such a margin is not merely incremental; it reflects fundamental architectural differences in shading capability, memory bandwidth, and compute resource allocation.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, albeit with a slightly narrower gap. The RTX A4000 Mobile posts 73,002, compared to the Quadro M4000M's 20,971, yielding a 248.1% lead. While Vulkan's lower-level API can sometimes mask architectural inefficiencies, here it still exposes a massive chasm. The RTX A4000 Mobile's advantage in this API is particularly notable because Vulkan tends to reward raw geometry throughput and driver efficiency, both of which are strengths of the newer architecture.

When compared to its own nearest rivals, the RTX A4000 Mobile's average benchmark score of 21,379 sits in a tight cluster. It is 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237), 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153), and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 (21,035). However, it trails the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (21,629) by 1.2%. This positioning suggests that while the RTX A4000 Mobile is a generation ahead of the M4000M, it is not at the top of its own class — it sits in a competitive mid-range segment where margins between rivals are razor-thin.

The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 20,480, placing it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534), 0.4% behind the Intel Arc B570 (20,556), 0.5% behind the Intel Arc A750 (20,582), and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662). Despite being an older architecture, its average score is remarkably close to the RTX A4000 Mobile's average of 21,379 — a difference of only 4.4%. This is because the average includes only two benchmarks for the M4000M, both of which are API-level tests, while the A4000's average incorporates nine diverse tests including DirectX and compute workloads, which can skew the comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 Mobile wins decisively in raw compute and modern API performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results demonstrate that it is purpose-built for contemporary workloads such as GPU-accelerated rendering, machine learning inference, and real-time visualization. The 386.2% OpenCL advantage indicates that compute-heavy applications — those leveraging OpenCL for general-purpose processing — will see transformative performance gains on the A4000. Similarly, the 248.1% Vulkan lead positions it as the clear choice for modern game engines and Vulkan-based CAD viewers that exploit explicit multi-threading and low-level hardware access.

The Quadro M4000M, while dramatically slower, still holds relevance in legacy environments. Its 64.83 GPixel/s pixel rate and 81.04 GTexel/s texture rate, while dwarfed by the A4000's 134.4 GPixel/s and 268.8 GTexel/s, are sufficient for older DirectX 11 and OpenGL applications that do not require advanced compute features. The M4000M's DirectX 12 (12_1) support, while not as comprehensive as the A4000's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), does allow it to run modern APIs at reduced fidelity. In scenarios where software is locked to a specific driver version or where the MXM form factor is required for hardware compatibility, the M4000M remains a functional, if not competitive, option.

For the RTX A4000 Mobile, its additional benchmarks reveal strengths beyond the head-to-head tests. It scores 14,796 in Passmark G3D, 6,394 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 585 in Passmark G2D. These results indicate strong overall graphics performance, with the compute score being particularly relevant for professional workloads like simulation and data analysis. The DirectX 11 score of 127 and DirectX 9 score of 157 suggest that even in older API scenarios, the A4000 maintains a significant edge, though these are not directly comparable to the M4000M due to missing data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 21,379, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M averages 20,480. However, this comparison is complicated by the fact that the A4000 has nine benchmark results, while the M4000M only has two.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A4000 Mobile in OpenCL compute?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile scores 97,178 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 386.2% higher than the Quadro M4000M's 19,989. This represents a nearly five-fold improvement in raw compute performance.

Q: Does the Quadro M4000M have any modern API features?

A: Yes, the Quadro M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the RTX A4000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes additional features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile is 0.7% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8970M and 1.6% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050, but 1.2% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000. The Quadro M4000M is 0.9% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 M390X but 0.5% slower than the Intel Arc A750.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile has a memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s, while the Quadro M4000M has 160.4 GB/s. This 223.6 GB/s difference directly impacts performance in bandwidth-sensitive workloads like texture-heavy rendering.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro M4000M was released in August 2015, while the RTX A4000 Mobile came out in April 2021.

Specification Differences

The RTX A4000 Mobile and Quadro M4000M differ across nearly every core specification. The A4000 uses a GA104 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, containing 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. The M4000M uses a GM204 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 44.4M per mm² for the A4000 versus 13.1M per mm² for the M4000M — a 3.4x density advantage for the newer part.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The A4000 runs at a base clock of 1140 MHz and boosts to 1680 MHz, while the M4000M operates at 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. Memory configurations are equally disparate: the A4000 features 8 GB of GDDR6 running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), also on a 256-bit bus, but with only 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute architecture is fundamentally different. The A4000 has 5,120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, while the M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This translates to pixel rates of 134.4 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s and texture rates of 268.8 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the A4000 delivers 17.20 TFLOPS, while the M4000M manages only 2.593 TFLOPS — a 6.6x difference. The A4000 also supports FP16 at 17.20 TFLOPS (1:1), while the M4000M has no FP16 capability listed.

Power and interface specifications also differ. The A4000 has a TDP of 115 W, while the M4000M draws 100 W. The A4000 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, whereas the M4000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The M4000M is specified as an MXM Module, while the A4000's slot width is not listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans three major NVIDIA generations. The Quadro M4000M is built on Maxwell 2.0, while the RTX A4000 Mobile uses Ampere. This transition brings several fundamental changes. The A4000 includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the M4000M. These dedicated hardware units enable real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, which are critical for modern professional applications like photorealistic rendering and denoising.

The process node difference is stark: 8 nm Samsung versus 28 nm TSMC. This allows the A4000 to pack more than three times the transistors into a similar die area, enabling both higher compute throughput and additional features without a corresponding increase in power draw. The A4000's 17.20 TFLOPS FP32 performance comes from 5,120 shading units, a 4x increase over the M4000M's 1,280 units. This quad-core scaling is the primary driver behind the massive benchmark deltas.

Memory architecture also evolves significantly. The A4000 moves to GDDR6 with effective speeds of 12 Gbps, producing 384.0 GB/s bandwidth — a 2.4x improvement over the M4000M's GDDR5 at 5 Gbps. The A4000 also doubles the memory capacity to 8 GB, which is essential for large datasets in AI training, 3D scene complexity, and high-resolution texture work.

API support reflects the architectural advancements. The A4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing, variable rate shading, and mesh shaders. The M4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), which lacks these features. Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the A4000's hardware ray tracing and tensor cores give it significant advantages in Vulkan ray tracing extensions and AI-based post-processing.

The transistor density difference — 44.4M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm² — is a proxy for overall architectural efficiency. The A4000 achieves 6.6x the FP32 throughput while consuming only 15 W more power, demonstrating the efficiency gains from the 8 nm process and Ampere's design improvements. The M4000M's Maxwell architecture, while efficient for its time, cannot compete with the raw resource allocation of the A4000's 5,120 shading units and 160 tensor cores.