Quadro 4000M vs GeForce GTX 850M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 850M with Quadro 4000M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 850M
2014
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
6.51
+92.6%

GTX 850M outperforms 4000M by an impressive 93% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking570733
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.37
Power efficiency10.092.36
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM107GF104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date12 March 2014 (10 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

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 cores640336
Core clock speedUp to 936 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate36.0826.60
Floating-point processing power1.155 TFLOPS0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4056

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationDDR3 or GDDR5no data
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 2500 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.0 GB/s80 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 outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+2.1

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 850M 6.51
+92.6%
Quadro 4000M 3.38

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 850M 2510
+92.8%
Quadro 4000M 1302

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 850M 4386
+110%
Quadro 4000M 2092

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 850M 15863
+47.9%
Quadro 4000M 10722

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 850M 9678
+85.7%
Quadro 4000M 5212

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 850M 25
+38.9%
Quadro 4000M 18

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:

900p84
+110%
40−45
−110%
Full HD32
−122%
71
+122%
4K10
+100%
5−6
−100%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.32
4Kno data89.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+126%
18−20
−126%
Hitman 3 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+69.2%
12−14
−69.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+126%
18−20
−126%
Hitman 3 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+69.2%
12−14
−69.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 58
+287%
14−16
−287%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+126%
18−20
−126%
Hitman 3 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+69.2%
12−14
−69.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+105%
20−22
−105%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Hitman 3 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

This is how GTX 850M and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 850M is 110% faster in 900p
  • Quadro 4000M is 122% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 850M is 100% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 850M is 600% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 36% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 850M is ahead in 61 test (98%)
  • Quadro 4000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.51 3.38
Recency 12 March 2014 22 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 100 Watt

GTX 850M has a 92.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 122.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 850M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 850M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 4000M 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 850M
GeForce GTX 850M
NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M

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.


3.8 533 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 850M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M 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.