Quadro 4000 vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Quadro 4000, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.01
+449%

R9 290 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 449% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking262706
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.020.18
Power efficiency5.241.85
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameHawaiiGF100
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)2 November 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $1,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290 has 4356% better value for money than Quadro 4000.

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 cores2560256
Core clock speed947 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate151.515.20
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.4864 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs16032

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 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mm241 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 6-pin

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 amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz702 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s89.86 GB/s

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 DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.0

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.

R9 290 21.01
+449%
Quadro 4000 3.83

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 290 8093
+448%
Quadro 4000 1477

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.01 3.83
Recency 5 November 2013 2 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 142 Watt

R9 290 has a 448.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 4000, on the other hand, has 93.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Quadro 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 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA Quadro 4000
Quadro 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.


4.2 558 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 188 votes

Rate Quadro 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.