NVIDIA Quadro M4000M vs NVIDIA GRID K260Q
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and NVIDIA GRID K260Q videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 31% higher core clock speed: 975 MHz vs 745 MHz
- Around 9% better floating-point performance: 2,496 gflops vs 2,289 gflops
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 225 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 2.1x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6146 vs 2949
- Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 413 vs 361
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7602 vs 6474
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2749 vs 1898
- Around 58% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3093 vs 1954
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7602 vs 6474
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2749 vs 1898
- Around 58% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3093 vs 1954
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 18 August 2015 vs 28 June 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz vs 745 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,496 gflops vs 2,289 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 225 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 5000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6146 vs 2949 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 vs 361 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7602 vs 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2749 vs 1898 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3093 vs 1954 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7602 vs 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2749 vs 1898 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3093 vs 1954 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GRID K260Q
- Around 22% higher texture fill rate: 95.36 GTexel / s vs 78 GTexel / s
- Around 20% higher pipelines: 1536 vs 1,280
| Texture fill rate | 95.36 GTexel / s vs 78 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1536 vs 1,280 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K260Q
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | NVIDIA GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6146 | 2949 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 | 361 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19918 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 81.104 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.338 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.157 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.443 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 251.464 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7602 | 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2749 | 1898 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3093 | 1954 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7602 | 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2749 | 1898 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3093 | 1954 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | NVIDIA GRID K260Q | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Code name | GM204 | GK104 |
| Launch date | 18 August 2015 | 28 June 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 551 | 552 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $937 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1013 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,496 gflops | 2,289 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1,280 | 1536 |
| Texture fill rate | 78 GTexel / s | 95.36 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Transistor count | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M4000M with others
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
ATIRadeon X1300 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 670
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8970M
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAGRID K260Q
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2200M
NVIDIAQuadro M4000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960A
