Quadro K4000M vs Radeon RX 560

Place in the ranking	463	628
Place by popularity	64	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.48	no data
Power efficiency	8.73	3.41
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	GK104
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99	no data

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 cores	1024	960
Core clock speed	1175 MHz	601 MHz
Boost clock speed	1275 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,000 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	81.60	48.08
Floating-point processing power	2.611 TFLOPS	1.154 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	64	80

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 x8	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	170 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	89.6 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
CUDA	-	+

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.

RX 560 9.45
+91.7%

K4000M 4.93

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.

RX 560 3646
+91.7%

K4000M 1902

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.

RX 560 17125
+194%

K4000M 5827

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

−20%

42
+20%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

2.83

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

This is how RX 560 and K4000M compete in popular games:

K4000M is 20% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.45	4.93
Recency	18 April 2017	1 June 2012
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	100 Watt

RX 560 has a 91.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop card while Quadro K4000M 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.