Apple M1 8-Core GPU vs Quadro P4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4000 with M1 8-Core GPU, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P4000
2017
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
29.80
+120%

P4000 outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a whopping 120% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking193381
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.68no data
Power efficiency19.79no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)no data
GPU code nameGP104no data
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)10 November 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$815 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 cores17928
Core clock speed1202 MHz1278 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology16 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Wattno data
Texture fill rate165.8no data
Floating-point processing power5.304 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs112no 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1901 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth192 GB/sno data
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 Connectors4x DisplayPortno data
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Stereo+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.

DirectX12no data
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA6.1-

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 HD69
+156%
27
−156%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.81no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+157%
21−24
−157%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+95.6%
45−50
−95.6%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+157%
21−24
−157%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+151%
55−60
−151%
Forza Horizon 5 75−80
+119%
35−40
−119%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+103%
35−40
−103%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+85.3%
30−35
−85.3%
Valorant 120−130
+118%
55−60
−118%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+95.6%
45−50
−95.6%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+157%
21−24
−157%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%
Dota 2 100−105
+104%
45−50
−104%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+66.7%
50−55
−66.7%
Fortnite 140−150
+85.7%
75−80
−85.7%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+151%
55−60
−151%
Forza Horizon 5 75−80
+119%
35−40
−119%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−105
+104%
45−50
−104%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+103%
35−40
−103%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+76%
100−105
−76%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+85.3%
30−35
−85.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+140%
40−45
−140%
Valorant 120−130
+118%
55−60
−118%
World of Tanks 270−280
+50%
180−190
−50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+95.6%
45−50
−95.6%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+157%
21−24
−157%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+130%
27−30
−130%
Dota 2 100−105
+104%
45−50
−104%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+66.7%
50−55
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+151%
55−60
−151%
Forza Horizon 5 75−80
+119%
35−40
−119%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+76%
100−105
−76%
Valorant 120−130
+118%
55−60
−118%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 50−55
+165%
20−22
−165%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+165%
20−22
−165%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+49.6%
110−120
−49.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
World of Tanks 190−200
+104%
95−100
−104%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+119%
27−30
−119%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+191%
30−35
−191%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+152%
30−35
−152%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+133%
21−24
−133%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+134%
27−30
−134%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+167%
18−20
−167%
Valorant 85−90
+153%
30−35
−153%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Dota 2 55−60
+129%
24−27
−129%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+129%
24−27
−129%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+135%
40−45
−135%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+129%
24−27
−129%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Dota 2 55−60
+129%
24−27
−129%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+141%
16−18
−141%
Fortnite 35−40
+160%
14−16
−160%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+153%
18−20
−153%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Valorant 40−45
+187%
14−16
−187%

This is how Quadro P4000 and Apple M1 8-Core GPU compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P4000 is 156% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 191% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Quadro P4000 surpassed Apple M1 8-Core GPU in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.80 13.53
Recency 6 February 2017 10 November 2020
Chip lithography 16 nm 5 nm

Quadro P4000 has a 120.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation card while Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook 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 P4000
Quadro P4000
Apple M1 8-Core GPU
M1 8-Core GPU

Other comparisons

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.


4 309 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 926 votes

Rate M1 8-Core GPU 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.