NVIDIA Quadro K4000M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A400 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M represent two vastly different eras of mobile workstation graphics, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive overall victory for the newer RTX A400, but the comparison is not without nuance, particularly regarding the older card's wider memory bus and higher texture fillrate. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural shifts, and specification differences to help determine which card fits specific use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5,986. This translates to a 281.6% advantage for the RTX A400, meaning it delivers nearly four times the raw compute performance in this test. This single data point underscores the massive generational leap in GPU compute capabilities between 2012 and 2024.

Beyond that single head-to-head, the overall average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, while the K4000M sits at 5,986. The RTX A400's average is buoyed by its strong Geekbench OpenCL result, but it also has scores in other tests. For instance, the RTX A400 posts a Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,557, alongside lower scores in legacy DirectX tests (e.g., Passmark DirectX 9: 87, DirectX 10: 32, DirectX 11: 37, DirectX 12: 27). The K4000M, in contrast, only has a single benchmark result in the data, making a multi-test comparison impossible.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The RTX A400's average score places it in a tight cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077) and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117). The data shows it is effectively tied with the MX230 (0% delta) and slightly behind the Intel part (-0.6%). The AMD Radeon 760M is a close competitor, with the RTX A400 being 1% faster. For the Quadro K4000M, its average score is nearly identical to the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987) and its desktop sibling, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982). It is also within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, a result that seems anomalous but is based purely on the average score data.

The biggest win for the RTX A400 is clearly its compute performance, as evidenced by the Geekbench OpenCL result. The K4000M, however, does hold advantages in certain raw specification categories, which are detailed in the Architecture and Specification sections below. The data shows that in terms of legacy API performance, the RTX A400's Passmark scores are quite low, which might indicate poor optimization for older workloads, but no comparable data exists for the K4000M to confirm a win there.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the clear performance winner. Its 281.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and its higher average benchmark score (6,078 vs 5,986) make it the superior choice for any compute-centric workload. The RTX A400 also benefits from a modern feature set and a much lower power draw. The Quadro K4000M, however, is not without merit. Its 256-bit memory bus provides significantly higher theoretical memory bandwidth relative to its generation, and its higher TMU and ROP counts suggest it could be competitive in fillrate-limited tasks. That said, the data does not include benchmarks to confirm this, and its overall score is lower.

The RTX A400 is the only sensible recommendation for anyone looking to run modern applications or perform GPU-accelerated compute. The K4000M is an end-of-life product from 2012, and its performance is firmly in the past. While the K4000M's specification sheet shows strengths in specific areas, the lack of modern API support (DirectX 12 (11_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)) and its 100W TDP make it a poor choice for contemporary work. The verdict is simple: the RTX A400 is the modern, efficient, and faster option. The K4000M is a legacy part that is only relevant for historical or very specific legacy applications.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows one clear domain where the RTX A400 wins: general and compute performance. The Geekbench OpenCL result is a direct measure of this, and the RTX A400's 22,844 score dwarfs the K4000M's 5,986. This makes the RTX A400 the winner for tasks like rendering, machine learning inference, and other GPU-accelerated workloads that rely on raw FP32 throughput. Its 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than double the K4000M's 1,153.9 GFLOPS.

The Quadro K4000M's potential wins are in legacy fillrate and memory bandwidth scenarios. Its 256-bit memory bus (vs 64-bit) and 80 TMUs (vs 24) give it a theoretical edge in texture-heavy tasks. Its texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s is higher than the RTX A400's 42.29 GTexel/s. Similarly, its pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s, which is lower than the A400's 28.19 GPixel/s, so the K4000M does not win there. However, the K4000M's bandwidth (89.60 GB/s) is close to the A400's (96.00 GB/s), despite being a much older design. The K4000M could be a winner in a hypothetical scenario where a software is optimized for Kepler architecture and relies heavily on texture fetching, but no benchmark data supports this claim.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M's 5,986.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A400 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the K4000M scores 5,986, giving the RTX A400 a 281.6% lead.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RTX A400 in terms of average score?

A: The closest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6,077 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with 6,117.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M have any advantages in memory specifications?

A: Yes, the K4000M has a 256-bit memory bus and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A400 has a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the DirectX API support for each card?

A: The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, while the RTX A400 has 768.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is monumental. The RTX A400 is based on the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, and features a chip on the GA107 design. The Quadro K4000M is a Kepler part, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, using the GK104 chip. This process shrink allows the RTX A400 to pack 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, while the K4000M has 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: 43.5M / mm² for the A400 versus 12.0M / mm² for the K4000M.

The RTX A400 introduces hardware features that the Kepler architecture completely lacks. It has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI processing, capabilities that are absent on the K4000M. The A400 also supports a modern feature set including Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6, while the K4000M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The K4000M's shading unit count is higher at 960, but this is misleading, as the A400's 768 shading units are far more efficient per-clock. The clock speeds tell a part of the story: the A400 boosts to 1762 MHz, while the K4000M is locked at a static 601 MHz.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the architectural ones. The process node differs (8 nm vs 28 nm), as does the foundry (Samsung vs TSMC). The memory is a major split: the RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, while the K4000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the A400's faster memory clocks (1500 MHz / 12 Gbps effective vs 700 MHz / 2.8 Gbps effective) result in slightly higher bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 89.60 GB/s).

The power and physical profiles are entirely different. The RTX A400 is a 50 W single-slot card, measuring 163 mm in length, and is powered directly from the PCIe slot with no external power connector. The K4000M is a 100 W MXM module, making it a mobile-only part with no standalone dimensions listed. The A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the K4000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) connector. Display outputs differ as well: the A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the K4000M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent". The A400 is an Active production part released in April 2024, while the K4000M is End-of-life and was released in May 2012. The A400 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the K4000M has no such specification.