NVIDIA Quadro M4000M vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a clear victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. The M4000M scores 19,989 points against the Tesla K40c's 17,468 points, a 14.4% advantage. This is a substantial lead in a compute-oriented workload, indicating that the Maxwell-based mobile workstation GPU outpaces the older Kepler-based compute accelerator in this specific test.

Looking at the broader context, the M4000M's average benchmark score of 20,480 places it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20,534 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Arc B570 at 20,556 (0.4% ahead), and the Intel Arc A750 at 20,582 (0.5% ahead). The M4000M trails these modern parts by less than a percentage point, which is remarkable given the architectural generation gap. It also sits 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M390X, which scores 20,662.

The Tesla K40c, by contrast, has an average score of 17,468, placing it in the 61st percentile. Its nearest rivals are much closer in performance: the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon 780M at 17,588 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (1% ahead). The K40c is effectively within striking distance of these parts, but it does not win any head-to-head matchups in the database.

The delta between the two cards is notable when you consider their specifications. The K40c has more raw hardware: 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and a larger 12 GB memory pool with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000M counters with 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 4 GB of memory at 160.4 GB/s. Despite having fewer than half the shading units and less than a third of the memory bandwidth, the M4000M still comes out ahead in OpenCL. This speaks to architectural efficiency: Maxwell 2.0 simply extracts more useful work per clock and per transistor than Kepler.

Clock speeds also tell part of the story. The M4000M runs at a base of 975 MHz with a boost of 1013 MHz, while the K40c is clocked much lower at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The M4000M's higher clocks, combined with its newer architecture, help it overcome the K40c's hardware advantage in raw compute units. The K40c does post a higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 5.046 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS for the M4000M, but real-world benchmark results do not reflect that theoretical gap in this test.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for the Geekbench OpenCL workload: the Quadro M4000M is the faster card, winning the only head-to-head comparison by 14.4%. If your priority is OpenCL compute performance as measured by this benchmark, the M4000M is the better choice. It also holds a higher percentile ranking (65th vs 61st) and a higher average benchmark score (20,480 vs 17,468).

However, the Tesla K40c is not without its own merits. It offers 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, three times the M4000M's 4 GB, and a wider 384-bit memory bus that delivers 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound or bandwidth-sensitive, the K40c could be the more practical option despite its lower raw compute score in OpenCL. The K40c also has a much higher texture rate at 210.2 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s for the M4000M, suggesting it may excel in texture-heavy tasks.

The M4000M is a mobile MXM module with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, while the K40c is a dual-slot desktop accelerator requiring a 550 W PSU and both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector. The M4000M is designed for portable workstations, while the K40c is a dedicated compute card with no display outputs. Your choice depends on the form factor and power envelope you can accommodate.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000M wins on compute efficiency and benchmark performance. Its 14.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the only direct comparison in the database, and it is a decisive one. The M4000M also has better API support, including DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the K40c's DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus the K40c's 1.2.175. For applications that leverage modern graphics APIs, the M4000M is clearly more capable.

The Tesla K40c wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 12 GB of GDDR5 and 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, it offers three times the memory and nearly double the bandwidth of the M4000M. For large datasets, deep learning models, or compute workloads that require holding substantial data on the GPU, the K40c is the stronger candidate. Its texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s is also more than double the M4000M's, which could matter for certain scientific visualization or texture-processing tasks.

The K40c's 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is nearly double the M4000M's 2.593 TFLOPS. While the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect this advantage, theoretical peak performance suggests the K40c could be faster in workloads that scale well with raw compute throughput. The K40c also has a larger die (561 mm² vs 398 mm²) and more transistors (7,080 million vs 5,200 million), indicating a fundamentally more complex processor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has an average benchmark score of 20,480, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c scores 17,468. The M4000M leads by 14.4% in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How does the Tesla K40c compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K40c scores slightly below all four of its nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon Pro 460 is 0.2% ahead, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 is 0.5% ahead, the AMD Radeon 780M is 0.7% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is 1% ahead.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K40c supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The M4000M has the newer API feature levels.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The M4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The K40c has a 245 W TDP, requires a 550 W power supply, and needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The K40c has 2,880 shading units and 240 TMUs, while the M4000M has 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs. The K40c has more than double the shading units and triple the TMUs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, while the Tesla K40c uses the GK180 chip based on Kepler. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The M4000M's GM204 die measures 398 mm² and contains 5,200 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The K40c's GK180 die is significantly larger at 561 mm² and packs 7,080 million transistors, though its density is slightly lower at 12.6 million per mm². The K40c is a physically larger, more complex chip, but the M4000M achieves higher density, reflecting the architectural efficiency of Maxwell.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The M4000M runs at 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost, while the K40c is clocked at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The M4000M's higher clocks contribute to its benchmark victory despite having fewer compute units. Memory clocks also differ: the M4000M operates at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the K40c runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The K40c has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s. The K40c's wider bus and larger capacity make it better suited for memory-heavy workloads, but the M4000M's faster clock speeds help compensate in compute tests.

Both cards have 64 ROPs on the M4000M versus 48 on the K40c, and the M4000M achieves a higher pixel rate at 64.83 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s. The K40c, however, dominates in texture rate at 210.2 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s for the M4000M. The K40c also posts a much higher theoretical FP32 throughput at 5.046 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS, though this does not translate to a win in the OpenCL benchmark.

Form factor and power delivery are starkly different. The M4000M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for laptops and portable workstations. The K40c is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, with a 245 W TDP and requiring both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector plus a 550 W power supply. The K40c has no display outputs, while the M4000M's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

The K40c was released in 2013 with a launch MSRP of 7,699 USD. The M4000M launched in 2015. Both are now end-of-life products, with the M4000M succeeding the Quadro Kepler-M and preceding the Quadro Pascal-M, while the K40c succeeds Tesla Fermi and precedes Tesla Maxwell.