Radeon R7 350 vs Quadro 4000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000M with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
3.37

R7 350 outperforms 4000M by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking728596
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.32no data
Power efficiency2.437.32
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGF104Cape Verde
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)6 July 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

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 cores336512
Core clock speed475 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate26.6025.60
Floating-point processing power0.6384 TFLOPS0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs5632

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed625 MHz1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s72 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 outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.1-

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 HD71
−54.9%
110−120
+54.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−60%
16−18
+60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−57.9%
30−33
+57.9%
Hitman 3 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−45.8%
35−40
+45.8%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−62.5%
65−70
+62.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−60%
16−18
+60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−57.9%
30−33
+57.9%
Hitman 3 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−45.8%
35−40
+45.8%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−60%
24−27
+60%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−62.5%
65−70
+62.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−60%
16−18
+60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−57.9%
30−33
+57.9%
Hitman 3 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−45.8%
35−40
+45.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−60%
24−27
+60%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−62.5%
65−70
+62.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
−50%
30−33
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

This is how Quadro 4000M and R7 350 compete in popular games:

  • R7 350 is 55% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.37 5.58
Recency 22 February 2011 6 July 2016
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 55 Watt

R7 350 has a 65.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 81.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R7 350 is a desktop 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 Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M
AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350

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 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 474 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 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.