Radeon PRO W7800 vs Quadro 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000 and Radeon PRO W7800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 142 Watt
3.83

PRO W7800 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 1836% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking70415
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1629.71
Power efficiency1.8819.88
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGF100Navi 31
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date2 November 2010 (14 years ago)13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 $2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO W7800 has 18469% 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 cores2564480
Core clock speed475 MHz1855 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2499 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate15.20699.7
Floating-point processing power0.4864 TFLOPS44.78 TFLOPS
ROPs32128
TMUs32280
Ray Tracing Coresno data70

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 x16
Length241 mm280 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin2x 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 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed702 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.86 GB/s576.0 GB/s

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 DisplayPort3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.0-

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.

Quadro 4000 3.83
PRO W7800 74.15
+1836%

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 1477
PRO W7800 28601
+1836%

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.83 74.15
Recency 2 November 2010 13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 260 Watt

Quadro 4000 has 83.1% lower power consumption.

PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 1836% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.


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 Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000
AMD Radeon PRO W7800
Radeon PRO W7800

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.


3.6 187 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 31 vote

Rate Radeon PRO W7800 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.