Quadro FX 4000 vs FirePro M8900

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated1351
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.13
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameBlackcombNV40
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date12 April 2011 (13 years ago)1 April 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,199

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 cores960no data
Core clock speed680 MHz375 MHz
Number of transistors1,700 million222 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate32.644.500
Floating-point processing power1.306 TFLOPSno data
ROPs328
TMUs4812

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportn/ano data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)AGP 8x
Widthno data2-slot
Form factorMXM-Bno data
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x Molex

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth115 GB/s32 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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.03.0
OpenGL4.42.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 April 2011 1 April 2004
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 142 Watt

FirePro M8900 has an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 225% more advanced lithography process, and 89.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between FirePro M8900 and Quadro FX 4000. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that FirePro M8900 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro FX 4000 is a 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.


AMD FirePro M8900
FirePro M8900
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000
Quadro FX 4000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 9 votes

Rate FirePro M8900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 21 vote

Rate Quadro FX 4000 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.