GeForce 8800 GT vs Quadro M4000M

Place in the ranking	342	1053
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	11.01	0.67
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM204	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

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 cores	1,280	112
Core clock speed	975 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1013 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,200 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	78.00	33.60
Floating-point processing power	2.496 TFLOPS	0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	80	56

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	large	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	Single Slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	2-way

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	57.6 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	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Display Port	1.2	no data
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	no data	128bit
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.2	+

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.

M4000M 15.38
+1215%

8800 GT 1.17

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.

M4000M 6146
+1213%

8800 GT 468

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 HD	75 +1400%	5−6 −1400%
4K	20 +1900%	1−2 −1900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	69.80
4K	no data	349.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +1633%	3−4 −1633%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +1220%	5−6 −1220%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1367%	3−4 −1367%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Valorant	65−70 +1525%	4−5 −1525%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +1633%	3−4 −1633%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Dota 2	55−60 +1325%	4−5 −1325%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +1350%	4−5 −1350%
Fortnite	85−90 +1367%	6−7 −1367%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +1220%	5−6 −1220%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +1325%	4−5 −1325%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1367%	3−4 −1367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +1313%	8−9 −1313%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Valorant	65−70 +1525%	4−5 −1525%
World of Tanks	200−210 +1343%	14−16 −1343%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +1633%	3−4 −1633%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Dota 2	55−60 +1325%	4−5 −1325%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +1350%	4−5 −1350%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +1220%	5−6 −1220%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +1313%	8−9 −1313%
Valorant	65−70 +1525%	4−5 −1525%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +1380%	10−11 −1380%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
World of Tanks	110−120 +1288%	8−9 −1288%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14	0−1
Far Cry 5	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Valorant	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Dota 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6	0−1
Dota 2	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Fortnite	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14	0−1
Valorant	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

This is how M4000M and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

M4000M is 1400% faster in 1080p
M4000M is 1900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.38	1.17
Recency	18 August 2015	29 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	105 Watt

M4000M has a 1214.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.