Arc A380 vs Quadro 4000

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000 with Arc A380, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 142 Watt
3.30

Arc A380 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 323% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking721347
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1942.75
Power efficiency1.8514.80
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGF100DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date2 November 2010 (14 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Arc A380 has 22400% 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 cores2561024
Core clock speed475 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate15.20131.2
Floating-point processing power0.4864 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs3264
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length241 mm222 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed702 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.86 GB/s186.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.0-
DLSS-+

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.

Quadro 4000 3.30
Arc A380 13.96
+323%

  • Passmark

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.

Quadro 4000 1475
Arc A380 6238
+323%

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 HD10−12
−370%
47
+370%

Cost per frame, $

1080p119.90
−3682%
3.17
+3682%
  • Arc A380 has 3682% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 65
+0%
65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 183
+0%
183
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%
Atomic Heart 48
+0%
48
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 122
+0%
122
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+0%
33
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Atomic Heart 32
+0%
32
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+0%
72
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 40
+0%
40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 66
+0%
66
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how Quadro 4000 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 370% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.30 13.96
Recency 2 November 2010 14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 75 Watt

Arc A380 has a 323% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 89.3% lower power consumption.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A380 is a desktop one.

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 Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

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.


3.5
189 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5
883 votes

Rate Arc A380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 4000 or Arc A380, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.