NVIDIA Quadro P4000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the decisively faster GPU in every benchmark where both cards were tested. The Tesla M10, which posts an average score that is statistically tied with the P4000 in the aggregate database, actually trails by a massive margin in each individual compute and graphics workload. The P4000's wins are not marginal; they are categorical, with one card delivering over three times the performance of the other in raw compute tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests show a complete sweep for the Quadro P4000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36,212 against the Tesla M10's 10,318. This represents a deltaPct of -71.5% for the M10, meaning the M10 delivers only 28.5% of the P4000's performance in this workload. The margin is staggering: the P4000 is roughly 3.5 times faster.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The Quadro P4000 posts a score of 41,786, while the Tesla M10 manages just 9,130. The -78.2% deltaPct for the M10 means the P4000 outperforms it by a factor of nearly 4.6. This is not a close contest; it is a generational gap made visible in a single metric.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals clarifies the situation further. The Tesla M10's average benchmark score is 9,724, which places it in a virtual tie with the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716, deltaPct 0.1) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, deltaPct -0.6). The Quadro P4000's average of 9,665 is similarly clustered, sitting just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 and 0.5% behind the Tesla C2070. Yet these aggregate averages are misleading. The P4000's individual scores in the head-to-head tests are outliers that pull its average down; the M10's scores are consistently low. The head-to-head data is the only reliable indicator of relative performance here, and it shows the P4000 winning both tests by margins that far exceed the variance seen in the rival comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The performance chasm is rooted in two completely different silicon designs. The Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a Maxwell architecture part, and the chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm². The transistor density is 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P4000, by contrast, uses the GP104 chip, which is a Pascal architecture design built on a 16 nm process, also by TSMC. This newer node allows for 7,200 million transistors packed into a 314 mm² die, yielding a density of 22.9 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ wildly. The M10 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is nearly three times the shader count and seven times the TMU count. These are not minor tweaks; they are fundamentally different classes of silicon. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Clock speeds also favor the P4000, though less dramatically. The M10 runs at a base clock of 1033 MHz and a boost of 1306 MHz. The P4000's baseline is 1202 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz. The memory subsystems further separate the two. The M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 83.20 GB/s of bandwidth. The P4000 also has 8 GB of GDDR5, but on a 256-bit bus, pushing 243.3 GB/s. That is roughly 2.9 times the memory bandwidth, a critical factor in compute-heavy tasks.

The API support is a differentiator as well. The M10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P4000 also has a nominal FP16 rate of 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64), a figure the M10 does not report. The TDP differences are stark: the M10 draws 225 W, while the P4000 draws just 105 W.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro P4000. It delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Tesla M10's 1.672 TFLOPS, a 3.17x advantage in theoretical peak throughput.

Q: Are the benchmark scores consistent with the spec sheet?

A: Yes. The P4000's 36,212 OpenCL score versus the M10's 10,318 is roughly proportional to the FP32 and memory bandwidth gaps. The larger Vulkan margin (41,786 vs 9,130) suggests the M10's older Maxwell architecture is also a bottleneck in API-specific workloads.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. However, the P4000 uses a 256-bit bus while the M10 uses a 128-bit bus, resulting in 243.3 GB/s versus 83.20 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro P4000. It has a TDP of 105 W and requires a 300 W power supply, compared to the Tesla M10's 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Can the Tesla M10 output video to displays?

A: No. The M10 has no display outputs. The Quadro P4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the DirectX feature level difference?

A: The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a higher feature level than the M10's DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every meaningful metric.

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla M10 | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |

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

| Chip | GM107 | GP104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1033 MHz | 1202 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1306 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.20 GB/s | 243.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 40 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.90 GPixel/s | 94.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.24 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.672 TFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 225 W | 105 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Dimensions | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

The Verdict

The data does not support any scenario where the Tesla M10 is the preferred choice for raw performance. The Quadro P4000 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has more than three times the FP32 throughput, nearly three times the memory bandwidth, and does so while drawing less than half the power. The M10's only advantages are its older architecture and larger physical footprint, neither of which is a performance benefit.

The P4000 is the clear winner for any workload measured in these benchmarks. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 251% and 358% higher, respectively. The M10's aggregate average score of 9,724 is only 0.6% higher than the P4000's 9,665, but that tiny edge is an artifact of the limited test set; the head-to-head numbers are the definitive comparison. The P4000 also offers display outputs, a higher DirectX feature level, and a smaller power footprint. The only reason to select the M10 would be if a specific application requires its dual-slot form factor or its 225 W power profile, but no benchmark in the data supports that choice.

Where Each One Wins

Quadro P4000 wins on: All measured compute performance. The 36,212 OpenCL score and 41,786 Vulkan score are the only head-to-head data points, and it wins both. It also wins on memory bandwidth (243.3 GB/s vs 83.20 GB/s), shading units (1,792 vs 640), texture rate (165.8 GTexel/s vs 52.24 GTexel/s), pixel rate (94.72 GPixel/s vs 20.90 GPixel/s), and FP32 compute (5.304 TFLOPS vs 1.672 TFLOPS). It is also the only card with display outputs, a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_0), and a lower TDP (105 W vs 225 W).

Tesla M10 wins on: Nothing in the benchmark data. The M10's average aggregate score of 9,724 is nominally higher than the P4000's 9,665, but this is driven by the P4000's inclusion of low-scoring tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (181) and Passmark G2D (786). In the only directly comparable tests, the M10 loses by 71.5% and 78.2%. The M10 also has a shorter release history, launching in 2016-05-17 versus the P4000's 2017-02-05, but that is a timeline fact, not a performance win. The M10's sole physical advantage is its larger 267 mm length, which offers no practical benefit. For any use case where the benchmarks matter, the Quadro P4000 is the only rational selection.