Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile vs Quadro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000 with RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms M4000 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 315 | 202 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.59 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.89 | 53.45 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | AD107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 26 February 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1664 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2025 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 129.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.573 TFLOPS | 8.294 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 104 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 GB/s | 128.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 8.9 |
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 | 17.31 | 27.29 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 26 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 35 Watt |
Quadro M4000 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 57.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 242.9% lower power consumption.
The RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation card while RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
