GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and NVIDIA TITAN Xp represent two very different eras and design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The M4000M is a mobile workstation part built on the 28 nm Maxwell architecture, while the TITAN Xp is a desktop enthusiast card on the 16 nm Pascal architecture. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between them, driven by fundamental architectural and specification differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The available head-to-head data covers two compute-focused tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the TITAN Xp delivers a commanding victory, though the magnitude of the win varies by API.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN Xp scores 72,585 against the Quadro M4000M’s 19,989. This represents a delta of -72.5% from the TITAN Xp’s perspective, meaning the M4000M trails by roughly three-quarters of the TITAN Xp’s score. To put it another way, the TITAN Xp achieves approximately 3.6 times the OpenCL score of the M4000M. This is a massive gap, consistent with the differences in raw compute resources: the TITAN Xp has 3,840 shading units versus 1,280 on the M4000M, and its FP32 throughput is listed at 12.15 TFLOPS against 2.593 TFLOPS.

The Geekbench Vulkan results show an even wider relative margin. The TITAN Xp scores 87,180, while the M4000M manages 20,971. The delta here is -75.9%, again from the TITAN Xp’s perspective. This means the M4000M’s Vulkan score is only about 24% of the TITAN Xp’s. The TITAN Xp’s advantage in this test is slightly larger than in OpenCL, suggesting its newer architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently relative to the older Maxwell design. The M4000M’s scores across both tests are remarkably consistent, 19,989 and 20,971, indicating its performance ceiling is similar regardless of the API. The TITAN Xp, by contrast, shows a noticeable jump from 72,585 to 87,180 when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan, a 20% improvement within its own results.

Across the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the TITAN Xp wins both. The M4000M registers zero wins. This is a clean sweep, but the data set is limited to two tests. The TITAN Xp’s broader benchmark suite, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, plus G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, provides additional context for its overall standing, though no comparable M4000M data exists for those tests. The TITAN Xp’s Passmark G3D score of 18,750 and GPU compute score of 9,430 reinforce its position as a high-end part, but they cannot be directly compared to the M4000M.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story than the head-to-head results. The M4000M has an average benchmark score of 20,480, while the TITAN Xp averages 19,177. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the different benchmark distributions each card faces. The M4000M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (average 20,534, delta -0.3%), Intel Arc B570 (20,556, -0.4%), and Intel Arc A750 (20,582, -0.5%). The TITAN Xp’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (19,164, +0.1%), Tesla K20m (19,089, +0.5%), and RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, +0.7%). The percentile rankings are close: M4000M sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN Xp is at the 64th. This suggests that while the TITAN Xp dominates in the two specific head-to-head tests, its overall benchmark profile is not dramatically higher than the M4000M’s when averaged across a wider field of GPUs.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the NVIDIA TITAN Xp is the superior performer in every head-to-head comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 72.5%; in Geekbench Vulkan, by 75.9%. Anyone seeking maximum compute performance in these workloads should choose the TITAN Xp without hesitation. The TITAN Xp also offers more memory, 12 GB of GDDR5X versus 4 GB of GDDR5, and significantly higher bandwidth at 547.6 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s, which matters for large data sets.

However, the M4000M is not without its niche. It is a mobile MXM module with a 100 W TDP, compared to the TITAN Xp’s 250 W dual-slot desktop card. The M4000M requires no external power connectors, while the TITAN Xp needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector plus a suggested 600 W power supply. For a portable workstation application where power and space are constrained, the M4000M is the only viable option between the two, the TITAN Xp physically cannot fit in such a system. The M4000M’s average benchmark score of 20,480 also edges out the TITAN Xp’s 19,177, and its percentile ranking is marginally higher at 65 versus 64. This indicates that in a broader context, the M4000M holds its own against a wider range of GPUs, even if it loses decisively to the TITAN Xp in direct comparison.

Pick the TITAN Xp for raw performance in OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks, for larger memory capacity, and for any desktop workstation build where power draw is not a primary concern. Pick the M4000M for mobile or compact systems where the MXM form factor, 100 W TDP, and lack of power connectors are mandatory requirements. The TITAN Xp’s launch MSRP was 1,199 USD, but that figure should not be weighed against the M4000M’s absent MSRP; the choice is dictated by form factor and performance needs, not price.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN Xp wins decisively with a score of 72,585 versus the Quadro M4000M’s 19,989, a delta of -72.5% from the TITAN Xp’s perspective.

Q: Is the TITAN Xp also faster in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: Yes. The TITAN Xp scores 87,180 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the M4000M scores 20,971, resulting in a -75.9% delta. The TITAN Xp’s Vulkan advantage is slightly larger than its OpenCL advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The M4000M has a higher average benchmark score of 20,480, while the TITAN Xp averages 19,177. The M4000M also sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, one point above the TITAN Xp’s 64th percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card?

A: The M4000M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (delta -0.3%), Intel Arc B570 (-0.4%), and Intel Arc A750 (-0.5%). The TITAN Xp’s nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 780 (+0.1%), Tesla K20m (+0.5%), and RTX 4050 Mobile (+0.7%).

Q: Can the TITAN Xp be used in a laptop?

A: No. The TITAN Xp is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with a 250 W TDP and external power connectors. The M4000M is an MXM Module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes. Both the Quadro M4000M and the TITAN Xp support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, according to their listed APIs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal substantial differences across nearly every category. The M4000M uses a 28 nm process node on the GM204 chip, while the TITAN Xp uses a 16 nm process on the GP102 chip. Transistor counts differ dramatically: the M4000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the TITAN Xp has 11,800 million on a 471 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 13.1M / mm² for the M4000M versus 25.1M / mm² for the TITAN Xp, reflecting the newer manufacturing process.

Clock speeds are higher on the TITAN Xp, with a base of 1405 MHz and boost of 1582 MHz, compared to the M4000M’s 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. Memory configurations diverge sharply: the M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the TITAN Xp has 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 547.6 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ, with the M4000M at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the TITAN Xp at 1426 MHz (11.4 Gbps effective).

Compute resources scale accordingly. The M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The TITAN Xp has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates follow this pattern: the M4000M posts 64.83 GPixel/s and 81.04 GTexel/s, while the TITAN Xp reaches 151.9 GPixel/s and 379.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.593 TFLOPS for the M4000M and 12.15 TFLOPS for the TITAN Xp. The TITAN Xp also lists FP16 performance at 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64), a field absent for the M4000M.

Physical and power characteristics are entirely different. The M4000M is an MXM Module with 100 W TDP and no power connectors, while the TITAN Xp is a dual-slot card with 250 W TDP, one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 600 W PSU. The TITAN Xp measures 267 mm by 112 mm by 40 mm; the M4000M has no listed dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the TITAN Xp has 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M4000M’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent. Release dates are separated by roughly 20 months, with the M4000M launching in August 2015 and the TITAN Xp in April 2017.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is a generational leap. The M4000M is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. The TITAN Xp is built on Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 10 generation. This is a shift from one microarchitecture to its direct successor, with Pascal refining many of Maxwell’s designs.

The manufacturing process is a key enabler. The M4000M uses a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the TITAN Xp uses a 16 nm node at the same foundry. This allows the TITAN Xp to pack more than twice the transistors, 11,800 million versus 5,200 million, onto a die that is only 73 mm² larger. The transistor density nearly doubles from 13.1M / mm² to 25.1M / mm², which is the foundation for the TITAN Xp’s higher clock speeds and greater compute throughput.

Memory architecture also reflects the generational change. The M4000M uses GDDR5, while the TITAN Xp uses GDDR5X, a faster memory type that contributes to its 547.6 GB/s bandwidth, more than three times the M4000M’s 160.4 GB/s. The bus width increases from 256-bit to 384-bit, and memory capacity triples from 4 GB to 12 GB.

Feature sets are largely similar at the API level, with both supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those arrived with later architectures. The TITAN Xp does list FP16 capabilities at 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64), a field that is null for the M4000M, indicating a minimal FP16 path rather than a dedicated compute feature. The TITAN Xp’s predecessor is the GeForce 900 series, while the M4000M’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M; their successors are GeForce 20 and Quadro Pascal-M, respectively. This places both cards at the tail end of their architectural lines, with the TITAN Xp representing the final enthusiast push of the Pascal era.