Quadro FX 4000 vs Radeon RX Vega 64

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 with Quadro FX 4000, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 64
2017
8 GB HBM2, 295 Watt
37.05
+14150%

RX Vega 64 outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 14150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1291350
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation22.62no data
Power efficiency8.610.13
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameVega 10NV40
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date7 August 2017 (7 years ago)1 April 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 64 and FX 4000 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores4096no data
Core clock speed1247 MHz375 MHz
Boost clock speed1546 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million222 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)295 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate395.84.500
Floating-point processing power12.66 TFLOPSno data
ROPs648
TMUs25612

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 x16AGP 8x
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-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 typeHBM2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB256 MB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed945 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth483.8 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.1.125N/A

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 Vega 64 37.05
+14150%
FX 4000 0.26

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 Vega 64 14275
+14034%
FX 4000 101

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 HD1180−1
1440p780−1
4K51-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.23no data
1440p6.40no data
4K9.78no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 65−70 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 81 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 83 0−1
Battlefield 5 186
+18500%
1−2
−18500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 68 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70 0−1
Far Cry 5 112 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 108 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 321
+15950%
2−3
−15950%
Hitman 3 84 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 315
+15650%
2−3
−15650%
Metro Exodus 144
+14300%
1−2
−14300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 116 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 178
+17700%
1−2
−17700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 261
+26000%
1−2
−26000%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 158
+15700%
1−2
−15700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 69 0−1
Battlefield 5 170
+16900%
1−2
−16900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70 0−1
Far Cry 5 86 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 93 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 294
+14600%
2−3
−14600%
Hitman 3 81 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 293
+14550%
2−3
−14550%
Metro Exodus 132 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 96 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 164
+16300%
1−2
−16300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 247
+24600%
1−2
−24600%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 51 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 54 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70 0−1
Far Cry 5 67 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 128 0−1
Hitman 3 73 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 100 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 143
+14200%
1−2
−14200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 54 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 89 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 47 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 0−1
Far Cry 5 40−45 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+21000%
1−2
−21000%
Hitman 3 50 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 80 0−1
Metro Exodus 79 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 243
+24200%
1−2
−24200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 62 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 59 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 36 0−1
Hitman 3 38 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 102 0−1
Metro Exodus 52 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 28 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 66 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 59 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 21 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 31 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 37.05 0.26
Recency 7 August 2017 1 April 2004
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 295 Watt 142 Watt

RX Vega 64 has a 14150% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

FX 4000, on the other hand, has 107.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 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 RX Vega 64
Radeon RX Vega 64
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.


4.3 706 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 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.