Quadro M4000 vs Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Vega Frontier Edition and Quadro M4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega Frontier Edition outperforms M4000 by an impressive 95% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 162 | 326 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.55 | 5.93 |
| Power efficiency | 7.78 | 9.97 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $791 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Vega Frontier Edition has 230% better value for money than Quadro M4000.
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 | 4096 | 1664 |
| Core clock speed | 1382 MHz | 773 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1600 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 409.6 | 80.39 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.11 TFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 | 104 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | Up to 192 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 32.78 | 16.80 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 29 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 120 Watt |
Vega Frontier Edition has a 95.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro M4000, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
