Quadro 4000 vs GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile with Quadro 4000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1060 Mobile outperforms 4000 by a whopping 415% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 287 | 712 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 27.28 | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 16.98 | 1.86 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 2 November 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $237.11 | $1,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1060 Mobile has 14258% better value for money than Quadro 4000.
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 cores | 1280 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 142 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 133.6 | 15.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.275 TFLOPS | 0.4864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 32 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 702 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 89.86 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 Connectors | DP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
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 HD | 68
+467%
| 12−14
−467%
|
| 1440p | 44
+450%
| 8−9
−450%
|
| 4K | 30
+500%
| 5−6
−500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.49
+2765%
| 99.92
−2765%
|
| 1440p | 5.39
+2681%
| 149.88
−2681%
|
| 4K | 7.90
+2934%
| 239.80
−2934%
|
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 2765% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 2681% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1060 Mobile has 2934% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
+489%
|
18−20
−489%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
+458%
|
12−14
−458%
|
| Metro Exodus | 69
+475%
|
12−14
−475%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 74
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Valorant | 86
+438%
|
16−18
−438%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+421%
|
14−16
−421%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Dota 2 | 49
+444%
|
9−10
−444%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
+483%
|
12−14
−483%
|
| Fortnite | 94
+422%
|
18−20
−422%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+471%
|
14−16
−471%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+486%
|
7−8
−486%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 74
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+444%
|
9−10
−444%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 204
+483%
|
35−40
−483%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
| Valorant | 53
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| World of Tanks | 222
+455%
|
40−45
−455%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 57
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+462%
|
21−24
−462%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+450%
|
12−14
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 68
+467%
|
12−14
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45
+463%
|
8−9
−463%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55
+450%
|
10−11
−450%
|
| Valorant | 72
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+462%
|
21−24
−462%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+458%
|
24−27
−458%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+467%
|
9−10
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+463%
|
8−9
−463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Valorant | 46
+475%
|
8−9
−475%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 64
+433%
|
12−14
−433%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Fortnite | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Valorant | 23
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
This is how GTX 1060 Mobile and Quadro 4000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 467% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 450% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1060 Mobile is 500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.84 | 3.66 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 2 November 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 142 Watt |
GTX 1060 Mobile has a 414.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 77.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
