NVIDIA Quadro K4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 6481, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986.

Q: How does the M5000M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The M5000M is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M, and 1.1% behind the Intel UHD Graphics P750.

Q: What is the only benchmark where both GPUs have recorded scores?

A: The only head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, where the M5000M scores 22920 and the K4000M scores 5986.

Q: What architecture does each GPU use?

A: The M5000M uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, while the K4000M uses Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two?

A: The M5000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the K4000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same TDP and form factor?

A: Yes, both are rated at 100 W, use MXM Module slot width, and have no power connectors. They also share the same MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the M5000M packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The K4000M contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per mm².

The M5000M has a substantially larger execution resource pool: 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. This resource difference directly explains why the M5000M delivers 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate and 100.9 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to 12.02 GPixel/s and 48.08 GTexel/s for the K4000M.

Clock behavior also differs sharply. The M5000M runs at a 962 MHz base clock with a 1051 MHz boost, while the K4000M operates at a flat 601 MHz with no boost. Memory clocks are equally divergent: the M5000M uses 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) for the K4000M.

The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are end-of-life products released for the mobile workstation segment. The M5000M was released in August 2015, while the K4000M came earlier in May 2012. The K4000M's successor is listed as the Quadro Maxwell-M family, which is the generation the M5000M belongs to, while the M5000M's successor is the Quadro Pascal-M family.

Where Each One Wins

The M5000M dominates every measurable workload in the database. Its single recorded head-to-head benchmark win is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it outperforms the K4000M by 282.9%. The K4000M has no wins in any recorded benchmark against the M5000M.

The M5000M's strengths lie in compute-heavy and general 3D workloads. Its 1536 shading units and 64 ROPs give it far more parallel throughput, which shows in the Geekbench OpenCL score of 22920 versus 5986. The M5000M also has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, which supports larger datasets and textures than the K4000M's 4 GB at 89.60 GB/s.

The K4000M, while older and slower, still holds a place in legacy mobile workstation configurations where software certification for Kepler-era platforms matters. Its 4 GB memory and 256-bit bus remain workable for older professional applications, and its 100 W TDP matches the M5000M, so thermal envelopes are similar. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the K4000M cannot compete with the M5000M in any recorded database metric.

For users selecting between the two, the data points clearly to the M5000M for any modern workload, including OpenCL compute, DirectX 12 titles, Vulkan applications, and high-resolution texture work. The K4000M is only relevant for maintaining compatibility with older validated systems.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |

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

| Chip | GM204 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 962 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1051 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 89.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 960 |

| TMUs | 96 | 80 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 67.26 GPixel/s | 12.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.9 GTexel/s | 48.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.229 TFLOPS | 1,153.9 GFLOPS |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2012-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Both GPUs share the same 28 nm TSMC process, 100 W TDP, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, portable device dependent display outputs, and OpenGL 4.6 support. Neither has RT cores, tensor cores, or FP16 performance listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one benchmark where both GPUs have recorded scores: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22920, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986. This represents a 282.9% advantage for the M5000M, a massive generational leap. This delta is far larger than any difference seen in either GPU's nearest rival comparisons. The M5000M's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, is only 0.1% away from its average score of 6481. The K4000M's closest rival, the AMD FirePro W4100, is essentially tied at 5987, a 0% delta.

The M5000M also has a richer benchmark profile in the database. Beyond OpenCL, it has recorded scores for Geekbench Vulkan (24875), Passmark DirectX 10 (35), DirectX 11 (54), DirectX 12 (29), DirectX 9 (119), G2D (476), G3D (7062), and GPU Compute (2756). The K4000M has no recorded scores for any of these tests, so cross-comparison is limited to the OpenCL result.

The M5000M's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 37, while the K4000M sits at 34. That 3 percentile point gap aligns with the average benchmark score difference of 6481 versus 5986. In practical terms, the M5000M places in a similar overall performance class as the GeForce GTX 670M (which is 0.5% ahead) and the GeForce GT 555M (0.2% ahead). The K4000M sits close to the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 desktop variant (0.1% ahead) and the GeForce GTX 770M (0.2% ahead).

The OpenCL result is the only direct head-to-head data point, but it is decisive. A 282.9% lead in a compute API that stresses shading units, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency reflects the M5000M's architectural advantages: 60% more shading units, double the ROPs, 79% more memory bandwidth, and a 75% higher boost clock.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the clear choice for any user who needs maximum performance in a mobile workstation GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database by 282.9%, has double the memory capacity, nearly double the memory bandwidth, and significantly higher compute throughput. Its 37th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it in the same performance tier as mid-range desktop graphics cards from its era, while the K4000M's 34th percentile reflects its older Kepler design.

The K4000M remains a functional GPU for legacy systems. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus are adequate for older professional workloads, and its 100 W TDP matches the M5000M, so system power requirements are unchanged. However, the K4000M has no benchmark wins against the M5000M, and its closest rivals in the database (AMD FirePro W4100, NVIDIA Quadro K4000) are all within 0.2% of its average score, indicating it is firmly anchored in an older performance class.

For new deployments, the data supports selecting the M5000M without qualification. The 8 GB frame buffer is better suited to large CAD assemblies, complex medical imaging datasets, and high-resolution texture-heavy applications. The 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 throughput give it a decisive edge in OpenCL compute workloads, as reflected in the 22920 score. The K4000M's 1,153.9 GFLOPS FP32 and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth place it at a severe disadvantage in any compute or rendering scenario.

For maintenance of existing K4000M systems, the upgrade path to the M5000M is architecturally straightforward, as both use the MXM-B (3.0) interface and fit the same 100 W thermal envelope. The M5000M represents the Maxwell generation that directly succeeded Kepler in NVIDIA's mobile Quadro roadmap. Users who require Vulkan 1.4 support should choose the M5000M, as the K4000M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. Similarly, DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level support on the M5000M exceeds the K4000M's DirectX 12 (11_0) capability.

The verdict is unambiguous: the M5000M outperforms the K4000M in every recorded metric, offers more memory and bandwidth, and provides newer API support. The K4000M should only be considered for legacy compatibility scenarios where software validation for Kepler architecture is mandatory.