Radeon RX 480 vs Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile

Place in the ranking	159	257
Place by popularity	not in top-100	90
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	15.30
Power efficiency	21.40	10.28
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	TU104	Ellesmere
GCN generation	no data	4th Gen
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)	29 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	2560	2304
Compute units	no data	36
Core clock speed	1110 MHz	1120 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	1266 MHz
Number of transistors	13,600 million	5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	249.6	182.3
Floating-point processing power	7.987 TFLOPS	5.834 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	160	144
Tensor Cores	320	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	40	no 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 size	large	no data
Bus support	no data	n/a
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	-	+

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	448.0 GB/s	224 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	2.0
DisplayPort support	-	1.4HDR
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	-	n/a
CrossFire	-	+
Enduro	-	n/a
FRTC	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
HD3D	-	n/a
LiquidVR	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
TressFX	-	+
TrueAudio	-	n/a
ZeroCore	-	+
UVD	-	+
VCE	-	+
VR Ready	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
Mantle	-	n/a
CUDA	7.5	-

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.

RTX 4000 Mobile 32.94
+52.6%

RX 480 21.58

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

RTX 4000 Mobile 25371
+41.6%

RX 480 17919

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

RTX 4000 Mobile 56250
+42.2%

RX 480 39552

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

RTX 4000 Mobile 18849
+54.7%

RX 480 12186

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

RTX 4000 Mobile 119052
+64.9%

RX 480 72213

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

RTX 4000 Mobile 445161
+16.1%

RX 480 383333

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	109 +41.6%	77 −41.6%
1440p	61 +17.3%	52 −17.3%
4K	49 +40%	35 −40%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.97
1440p	no data	4.40
4K	no data	6.54

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +70%	40−45 −70%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +60%	45−50 −60%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	94 +34.3%	70−75 −34.3%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +70%	40−45 −70%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +60%	45−50 −60%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +66.7%	95−100 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +49.2%	55−60 −49.2%
Metro Exodus	103 +74.6%	55−60 −74.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +38%	50−55 −38%
Valorant	130−140 +51.1%	90−95 −51.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	95−100 +37.1%	70−75 −37.1%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +70%	40−45 −70%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +60%	45−50 −60%
Dota 2	44 −18.2%	52 +18.2%
Far Cry 5	89 +74.5%	51 −74.5%
Fortnite	150−160 +35.7%	110−120 −35.7%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +66.7%	95−100 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +49.2%	55−60 −49.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	110−120 +41%	78 −41%
Metro Exodus	51 +219%	16 −219%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +141%	78 −141%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +103%	34 −103%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +290%	30 −290%
Valorant	130−140 +51.1%	90−95 −51.1%
World of Tanks	270−280 −2.5%	285 +2.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	81 +15.7%	70−75 −15.7%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +134%	29 −134%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +60%	45−50 −60%
Dota 2	127 +62.8%	75−80 −62.8%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +28.2%	70−75 −28.2%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +66.7%	95−100 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +49.2%	55−60 −49.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +194%	64 −194%
Valorant	130−140 +51.1%	90−95 −51.1%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +20.8%	24−27 −20.8%
Dota 2	60−65 +64.9%	37 −64.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +67.6%	37 −67.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0.6%	170−180 −0.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +57.1%	21 −57.1%
World of Tanks	210−220 +45.3%	150−160 −45.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	73 +62.2%	45−50 −62.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +77.8%	18−20 −77.8%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +71.4%	60−65 −71.4%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +62.7%	55−60 −62.7%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +55.6%	35−40 −55.6%
Metro Exodus	77 +54%	50 −54%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +75%	30−35 −75%
Valorant	100−110 +71.2%	55−60 −71.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Dota 2	60−65 +77.8%	36 −77.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +77.8%	36 −77.8%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +86.7%	15 −86.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +54.3%	70 −54.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +77.8%	36 −77.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	39 +69.6%	21−24 −69.6%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Dota 2	106 +20.5%	88 −20.5%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +65.5%	27−30 −65.5%
Fortnite	45−50 +64.3%	28 −64.3%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +61.8%	30−35 −61.8%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +72.2%	18−20 −72.2%
Valorant	50−55 +85.7%	27−30 −85.7%

This is how RTX 4000 Mobile and RX 480 compete in popular games:

RTX 4000 Mobile is 42% faster in 1080p
RTX 4000 Mobile is 17% faster in 1440p
RTX 4000 Mobile is 40% faster in 4K

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 4000 Mobile is 290% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 480 is 18% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 4000 Mobile is ahead in 62 tests (97%)
RX 480 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.94	21.58
Recency	27 May 2019	29 June 2016
Chip lithography	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	150 Watt

RTX 4000 Mobile has a 52.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 480 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 480 is a desktop one.

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