NVIDIA Quadro M4000M vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is remarkably close. The Quadro M4000M scores 19,989, while the Tesla K40m scores 19,885. That is a delta of just 0.5% in favor of the M4000M. In practical terms, these two GPUs are effectively tied in this compute-oriented test, despite their very different architectures and specifications.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the M4000M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 20,971, which the Tesla K40m lacks entirely. The K40m does not support the Vulkan benchmark in the provided data, so the M4000M holds a clear advantage in that specific test. However, since the head-to-head table only lists OpenCL as the shared benchmark, the Vulkan result is an additional data point rather than a direct comparison.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The M4000M averages 20,480 across its two tests, while the K40m averages 19,885 from its single OpenCL result. That puts the M4000M roughly 3% higher on average, but again, the comparison is skewed by the extra Vulkan run. Both GPUs sit at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they are in the same performance tier overall.

When examining nearest rivals, the M4000M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile with an average score of 20,534, just 0.3% higher. The Intel Arc B570 (20,556) and Arc A750 (20,582) are also within half a percent. The AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662) is 0.9% ahead. For the K40m, the AMD FirePro W7000 (19,905) is a mere 0.1% faster, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765) trails by 0.6%. The AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602) sit 1.3% and 1.4% behind, respectively. The data suggests both cards punch at roughly the same weight class, despite their divergent designs.

Architecture Differences

The M4000M is built on the GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the K40m uses the GK110B chip with Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the similarities end there. The K40m is a much larger die at 561 mm² with 7,080 million transistors, compared to the M4000M's 398 mm² die with 5,200 million transistors. Interestingly, the M4000M has a higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm² for the K40m, showing Maxwell's more efficient packing.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The M4000M runs at a base of 975 MHz and boosts to 1,013 MHz, while the K40m is clocked much lower at 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. The memory clocks also differ: the M4000M uses 1,253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while the K40m runs at 1,502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

The K40m compensates for lower core clocks with sheer scale. It packs 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, versus the M4000M's 1,280 shaders, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This gives the K40m a massive texture rate advantage at 210.2 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. The K40m also leads in FP32 compute at 5.046 TFLOPS, nearly double the M4000M's 2.593 TFLOPS. However, the M4000M wins on pixel rate at 64.83 GPixel/s versus 52.56 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher ROP count and clocks.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The K40m offers 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000M has only 4 GB on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s. This is a 44% bandwidth deficit for the M4000M, but the K40m's much larger frame buffer makes it the obvious choice for memory-heavy workloads.

The API support also differs. The M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K40m is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores, as those technologies came later.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Tesla K40m delivers 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is nearly double the M4000M's 2.593 TFLOPS. The K40m's 2,880 shading units vastly outnumber the M4000M's 1,280.

Q: Why does the M4000M win the OpenCL benchmark despite lower compute specs?

A: The M4000M scores 19,989 versus the K40m's 19,885, a 0.5% edge. This likely reflects Maxwell's architectural efficiency and higher clock speeds (975 MHz base versus 745 MHz), which offset the K40m's raw shader count advantage in this particular workload.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card offer?

A: The K40m provides 288.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the M4000M offers 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. The K40m has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Can the Tesla K40m output to displays?

A: No. The K40m has no display outputs, as it is designed for compute-only server workloads. The M4000M's outputs are portable device dependent, meaning it relies on the laptop or mobile workstation's own display connections.

Q: What power supply does each require?

A: The K40m has a suggested PSU of 550 W and a TDP of 245 W. The M4000M has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors, drawing power through the mobile chassis.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern games?

A: The M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K40m supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The M4000M is more current in API features.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | NVIDIA Tesla K40m |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | GM204 | GK110B |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 975 MHz | 745 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,013 MHz | 876 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,280 | 2,880 |

| TMUs | 80 | 240 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.83 GPixel/s | 52.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 81.04 GTexel/s | 210.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.593 TFLOPS | 5.046 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 245 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | Not specified | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2013-11-21 |

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla K40m wins decisively in memory-heavy and compute-heavy scenarios. Its 12 GB frame buffer and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the superior choice for large datasets, deep learning inference, scientific simulations, or any workload that needs to keep massive amounts of data resident on the GPU. The FP32 throughput of 5.046 TFLOPS is roughly double the M4000M's, so any task that scales with raw shader count — like certain rendering tasks or general-purpose compute — will favor the K40m. The texture rate of 210.2 GTexel/s is also more than double, which matters for texturing-heavy graphics workloads.

The Quadro M4000M wins in efficiency and modern API support. Its 100 W TDP versus the K40m's 245 W means it generates far less heat and requires less power delivery, which is critical for mobile workstations. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, making it more compatible with modern graphics software and games. The higher pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s suggests better fill-rate-bound performance, which can help in certain rendering scenarios. The M4000M's MXM form factor makes it installable in laptops, whereas the K40m is a dual-slot desktop card with no display outputs.

The benchmark data shows the M4000M edges out the K40m in OpenCL by 0.5%, and it has a Vulkan score of 20,971 that the K40m simply cannot match. For users who need a versatile, power-efficient GPU that works with current APIs, the M4000M is the practical choice. For users who need maximum memory capacity and raw compute throughput in a server or desktop environment, the K40m is the workhorse.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two GPUs designed for different purposes, even though they land in the same performance percentile. The M4000M is a mobile workstation part that prioritizes efficiency and modern feature support. Its 100 W TDP, MXM module design, and no power connectors make it suitable for laptops, while its DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 support keep it relevant for newer software. The benchmark scores — 19,989 in OpenCL and 20,971 in Vulkan — show solid all-around performance for a mobile GPU, and its 65th percentile ranking confirms it is a mid-to-upper tier part.

The Tesla K40m is a compute-oriented server card from an earlier generation. Its 12 GB memory and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are the standout features, along with 5.046 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The lack of display outputs and dual-slot form factor make it unsuitable for typical workstation use. Its single OpenCL score of 19,885 is nearly identical to the M4000M, but the K40m's Vulkan support is older (1.2.175) and its DirectX 12 implementation is limited to 11_1. The 245 W TDP and suggested 550 W PSU also make it power-hungry by comparison.

For a mobile workstation user who needs a capable GPU for professional applications, the M4000M is the obvious pick. It offers comparable compute performance to the K40m in the shared benchmark, but with far better efficiency and modern API support. For a server administrator building a compute node with heavy memory requirements, the K40m's 12 GB buffer and double FP32 throughput make it the stronger choice, despite its age. The launch MSRP of the K40m was 7,699 USD, reflecting its enterprise positioning. Both cards are end-of-life, so availability today is limited to used or refurbished channels. Ultimately, the decision comes down to form factor and workload: mobile flexibility with the M4000M, or raw memory and compute density with the K40m.