Quadro K4000M vs GeForce GTX 960

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960 with Quadro K4000M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
15.85
+213%

GTX 960 outperforms K4000M by a whopping 213% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking342631
Place by popularity53not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.16no data
Power efficiency9.113.49
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM206GK104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date22 January 2015 (9 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1024960
Core clock speed1127 MHz601 MHz
Boost clock speed1178 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,940 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate75.3948.08
Floating-point processing power2.413 TFLOPS1.154 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6480

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)400 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s700 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s89.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 960 15.85
+213%
K4000M 5.06

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 960 6095
+213%
K4000M 1947

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 960 10768
+211%
K4000M 3466

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 960 30751
+100%
K4000M 15362

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 960 7916
+260%
K4000M 2199

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 960 49918
+162%
K4000M 19058

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 960 18619
+220%
K4000M 5827

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 960 17784
+282%
K4000M 4650

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 960 48
+118%
K4000M 22

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD62
+51.2%
41
−51.2%
4K30
+233%
9−10
−233%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.21no data
4K6.63no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+115%
12−14
−115%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Elden Ring 45−50
+308%
12−14
−308%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+240%
14−16
−240%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+115%
12−14
−115%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+258%
12−14
−258%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+138%
16−18
−138%
Valorant 60−65
+433%
12−14
−433%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+240%
14−16
−240%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+115%
12−14
−115%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Dota 2 33
+94.1%
16−18
−94.1%
Elden Ring 45−50
+308%
12−14
−308%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+128%
24−27
−128%
Fortnite 85−90
+193%
30−33
−193%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+188%
16−18
−188%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+258%
12−14
−258%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+163%
40−45
−163%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+138%
16−18
−138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 49
+206%
16−18
−206%
Valorant 60−65
+433%
12−14
−433%
World of Tanks 200−210
+142%
80−85
−142%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+240%
14−16
−240%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+115%
12−14
−115%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Dota 2 55−60
+235%
16−18
−235%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+128%
24−27
−128%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+163%
40−45
−163%
Valorant 60−65
+433%
12−14
−433%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Elden Ring 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+342%
30−35
−342%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
World of Tanks 110−120
+206%
35−40
−206%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+255%
10−12
−255%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+775%
4−5
−775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Valorant 40−45
+186%
14−16
−186%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Dota 2 27−30
+58.8%
16−18
−58.8%
Elden Ring 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+236%
14−16
−236%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 27−30
+58.8%
16−18
−58.8%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Fortnite 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Valorant 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%

This is how GTX 960 and K4000M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960 is 51% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960 is 233% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 960 is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 960 surpassed K4000M in all 61 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.85 5.06
Recency 22 January 2015 1 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 100 Watt

GTX 960 has a 213.2% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

K4000M, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 960 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960 is a desktop card while Quadro K4000M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
GeForce GTX 960
NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
Quadro K4000M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 3858 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 14 votes

Rate Quadro K4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.