GeForce GTX 260 vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M with GeForce GTX 260, including specs and performance data.
4000M outperforms GTX 260 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 821 | 842 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 0.14 |
| Power efficiency | 2.41 | 1.22 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GT200 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (15 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro 4000M has 14% better value for money than GTX 260.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 336 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | 36.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6384 TFLOPS | 0.4769 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 28 |
| TMUs | 56 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 224 KB |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 111.9 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 71
+9.2%
| 65−70
−9.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.32
+9.2%
| 6.91
−9.2%
|
- Quadro 4000M has 9% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how Quadro 4000M and GTX 260 compete in popular games:
- Quadro 4000M is 9% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.11 | 2.87 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 16 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 896 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 182 Watt |
Quadro 4000M has a 8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 129% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 63% more advanced lithography process, and 82% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro 4000M and GeForce GTX 260.
Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
