Quadro 4000M vs Quadro RTX 4000

Place in the ranking	109	740
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	36.25	0.35
Power efficiency	17.01	2.26
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	TU104	GF104
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	13 November 2018 (6 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$899	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 4000 has 10257% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.

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	2304	336
Core clock speed	1005 MHz	475 MHz
Boost clock speed	1545 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	13,600 million	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	222.5	26.60
Floating-point processing power	7.119 TFLOPS	0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	144	56
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	36	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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	no 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 type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1625 MHz	625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	416.0 GB/s	80 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

3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	2.1

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 39.71
+1103%

Quadro 4000M 3.30

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.

RTX 4000 15300
+1105%

Quadro 4000M 1270

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

RTX 4000 85807
+1546%

Quadro 4000M 5212

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

850−900
+1097%

−1097%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

1.06

6.32

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how RTX 4000 and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

RTX 4000 is 1097% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	39.71	3.30
Recency	13 November 2018	22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	100 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 1103.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 4000M, on the other hand, has 60% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation card while Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation one.

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