Quadro FX 4000 vs Radeon R9 270X

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking389not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.63no data
Power efficiency4.86no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameCuracaoNV40
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)1 April 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $2,199

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 cores1280no data
Core clock speedno data375 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million222 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate84.004.500
Floating-point processing power2.688 TFLOPSno data
ROPs328
TMUs8012

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 8x
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pin2x Molex

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data500 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s32 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 129.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

R9 270X 4869
+4721%
FX 4000 101

Pros & cons summary


Recency 8 October 2013 1 April 2004
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 142 Watt

R9 270X has an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 4000, on the other hand, has 26.8% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 270X and Quadro FX 4000. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop card while Quadro FX 4000 is a 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 R9 270X
Radeon R9 270X
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000
Quadro FX 4000

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.


4 741 vote

Rate Radeon R9 270X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 21 vote

Rate Quadro FX 4000 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.