Quadro M4000 vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Quadro M4000, including specs and performance data.
P4000 Mobile outperforms M4000 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 264 | 314 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.92 | 5.46 |
Power efficiency | 14.36 | 10.04 |
Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
GPU code name | GP104 | GM204 |
Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
Release date | 11 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $791 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
P4000 Mobile has 45% better value for money than Quadro M4000.
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 | 1792 | 1664 |
Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 773 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,200 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 120 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 80.39 |
Floating-point processing power | 4.398 TFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 64 | 64 |
TMUs | 112 | 104 |
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 |
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 241 mm |
Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1502 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | Up to 192 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 | 4x DisplayPort |
Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Optimus | + | - |
3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
3D Stereo | + | no data |
Mosaic | + | + |
High-Performance Video I/O6 | no data | + |
nView Display Management | + | no data |
nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
CUDA | 6.1 | 5.2 |
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 | 20.60 | 17.29 |
Recency | 11 January 2017 | 29 June 2015 |
Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 120 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has a 19.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Quadro M4000 is a 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.