Quadro 4000M vs Radeon R7 250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 with Quadro 4000M, including specs and performance data.

R7 250
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.74

4000M outperforms R7 250 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking799731
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.100.32
Power efficiency2.922.34
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameOlandGF104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 4000M has 220% better value for money than R7 250.

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 cores384336
Core clock speedno data475 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate25.2026.60
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2456

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-B (3.0)
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s80 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-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.

R7 250 2.74
Quadro 4000M 3.38
+23.4%

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.

R7 250 1058
Quadro 4000M 1302
+23.1%

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.

R7 250 2775
+32.6%
Quadro 4000M 2092

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.

R7 250 12581
+17.3%
Quadro 4000M 10722

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 HD20
−255%
71
+255%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.456.32

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−35.7%
18−20
+35.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−14.3%
24−27
+14.3%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−35.7%
18−20
+35.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−14.3%
24−27
+14.3%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−35.7%
18−20
+35.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−14.3%
24−27
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−25%
20−22
+25%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
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%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 1−2
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1

This is how R7 250 and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 4000M is 255% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro 4000M is ahead in 49 tests (82%)
  • there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.74 3.38
Recency 8 October 2013 22 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 100 Watt

R7 250 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

Quadro 4000M, on the other hand, has a 23.4% higher aggregate performance score.

The Quadro 4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop 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.

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.


AMD Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 435 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M 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.