Radeon R7 (Carrizo) vs Quadro M4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
M6-8Q M60-1Q M60-2Q M60-4A M60-8Q Quadro M3000 SE Quadro M4000 Quadro M5000 Quadro M5000 SE Tesla M6 Tesla M60
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
(Bristol Ridge) (Carrizo) (Kaveri) A265 A360 M260 M260DX M260X M265 M265DX M270 M270DX M275DX M340 M350 M350 2GB M360 M365X M370 M380 M440 M445 M460 M465 M465X Mobile Graphics

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000 with Radeon R7 (Carrizo), including specs and performance data.

Quadro M4000
2015, $791
8 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
15.95
+781%

M4000 outperforms R7 (Carrizo) by a whopping 781% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
R7 (Carrizo) R7 (Carrizo)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking369971
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.41no data
Power efficiency10.233.98
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGM204Carrizo
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date29 June 2015 (10 years ago)4 June 2015 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$791 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores1664512
Core clock speed773 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt12-35 Watt
Texture fill rate80.39no data
Floating-point processing power2.573 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs104no data
L1 Cache624 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MBno data

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length241 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHzno data
Memory bandwidthUp to 192 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPortno data
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Syncno 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 and SDK support

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

DirectX1212 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA5.2-

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 HD85−90
+750%
10
−750%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24
+0%
24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Quadro M4000 and R7 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M4000 is 750% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 15.95 1.81
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 12 Watt

Quadro M4000 has a 781% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 (Carrizo), on the other hand, has 900% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 (Carrizo) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
P106-100 P106 100
R7 (Carrizo) Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
vs
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU)
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
RTX A500 RTX A500
Tesla M60 Tesla M60
vs
3000M X2 3000M X2
Tesla M60 Tesla M60
vs
NVS 440 PCIe x1 NVS 440 PCIe x1
Tesla M60 Tesla M60
vs
RTX 5090 DD RTX 5090 DD
Quadro M4000 M4000
vs
R7 (Bristol Ridge) R7 (Bristol Ridge)
Quadro M4000 M4000
vs
R7 (Kaveri) R7 (Kaveri)
Quadro M4000 M4000
vs
R7 430 OEM R7 430 OEM
Quadro M4000 M4000
vs
R9 370 R9 370
Quadro M4000 M4000
vs
GT 630 Rev. 2 GT 630 Rev. 2
Quadro M4000 M4000
vs
GTX 560 OEM GTX 560 OEM
Quadro M4000 M4000
vs
R7 A265 R7 A265

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 285 votes

Rate Quadro M4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 7 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M4000 or Radeon R7 (Carrizo), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.