Quadro P400 vs Quadro 7000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 7000 and Quadro P400, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
7000 outperforms P400 by a whopping 110% 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 | 556 | 754 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.00 |
| Power efficiency | 3.19 | 10.31 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 May 2012 (14 years ago) | 7 February 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,499 | $119.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro 7000 and Quadro P400 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 512 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 1228 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1252 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 20.03 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.3322 TFLOPS | 0.641 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 512 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 145 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 851 MHz | 1002 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 163.4 GB/s | 32.06 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | 3x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 6.1 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.41 | 4.00 |
| Recency | 2 May 2012 | 7 February 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 30 Watt |
Quadro 7000 has a 110% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro P400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 580% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 7000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 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.
