GeForce GT 440 vs Quadro M5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000M with GeForce GT 440, including specs and performance data.
M5000M outperforms GT 440 by a whopping 809% 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 | 364 | 975 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 13.02 | 2.20 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (11 years ago) | 1 February 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1,536 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1051 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 93.60 | 12.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.995 TFLOPS | 0.311 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 96 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB GDDR5 or 1 GB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | no data | 1 GB GDDR5 or 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1600 MHz (GDDR5) or 900 MHz (DDR3) |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 28.8 (DDR3) – 51.2 (GDDR5) |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | HDMIVGADual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | + |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 84
+833%
| 9−10
−833%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 8.78 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+860%
|
10−11
−860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+860%
|
10−11
−860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+900%
|
7−8
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+843%
|
14−16
−843%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+860%
|
10−11
−860%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+929%
|
21−24
−929%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+920%
|
10−11
−920%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+900%
|
7−8
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 67
+857%
|
7−8
−857%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+843%
|
14−16
−843%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+929%
|
7−8
−929%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+920%
|
10−11
−920%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+833%
|
6−7
−833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+900%
|
7−8
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+843%
|
14−16
−843%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+830%
|
10−11
−830%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+942%
|
12−14
−942%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+881%
|
16−18
−881%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+850%
|
16−18
−850%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+867%
|
9−10
−867%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+900%
|
6−7
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
This is how M5000M and GT 440 compete in popular games:
- M5000M is 833% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.82 | 1.85 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 1 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB GDDR5 or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 65 Watt |
M5000M has a 809% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GT 440, on the other hand, has a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 54% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 440 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 440 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.
