NVIDIA Quadro M4000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A 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 5 month(s) later
• Around 80% higher texture fill rate: 78 GTexel / s vs 43.4 GTexel / s
• 2x more pipelines: 1,280 vs 640
• Around 80% better floating-point performance: 2,496 gflops vs 1,389 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 77% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6146 vs 3465
• Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 413 vs 312
• Around 59% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19918 vs 12495
• Around 63% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 81.104 vs 49.772
• Around 63% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1235.338 vs 757.295
• Around 68% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.157 vs 3.67
• Around 37% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 68.443 vs 49.875
• Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 251.464 vs 179.567
• Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7602 vs 5157
• Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7602 vs 5157

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A

• Around 6% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 975 MHz
• Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1085 MHz vs 1013 MHz
• Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5834 vs 2749
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7859 vs 3093
• 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5834 vs 2749
• 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7859 vs 3093

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6146 3465
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	413 312
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	19918 12495
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	81.104 49.772
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1235.338 757.295
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6.157 3.67
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	68.443 49.875
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	251.464 179.567
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7602 5157
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2749 5834
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3093 7859
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7602 5157
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2749 5834
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3093 7859

Compare specifications (specs)