Radeon RX 590 vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 with Radeon RX 590, including specs and performance data.
P4000 outperforms RX 590 by a significant 23% 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 | 242 | 290 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 94 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.90 | 13.92 |
| Power efficiency | 20.17 | 9.86 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Polaris 30 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (9 years ago) | 15 November 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 590 has 102% better value for money than Quadro P4000.
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 | 1792 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1469 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 222.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
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 | 241 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 256.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | 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 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 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.
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 | 65 | 102
+56.9%
|
| 1440p | 70−75
+16.7%
| 60 |
| 4K | 45−50
+18.4%
| 38 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.54 | 2.74
+78.2%
|
| 1440p | 11.64 | 4.65
+60.1%
|
| 4K | 18.11 | 7.34
+59.5%
|
- RX 590 has 78% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 590 has 60% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 590 has 59% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+27.4%
|
60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+21.9%
|
120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+26.5%
|
45−50 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 65−70
+28.3%
|
50−55 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+27.4%
|
60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 133
+25.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+21.9%
|
120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+26.5%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+7.1%
|
85 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 139
+6.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110 | 120
+10.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 120
+8.1%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 301
+65.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+27.4%
|
60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 111
+4.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+21.9%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+7.6%
|
250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+26.5%
|
45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+9.2%
|
110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+15.2%
|
79 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 138
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110 | 113
+3.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+25.3%
|
79 |
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+21.2%
|
52 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+2.8%
|
108 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77 | 88
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 287
+57.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+6%
|
100 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+26.5%
|
45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+9.2%
|
110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+23%
|
74 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+19.8%
|
91 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+33.7%
|
83 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41 | 51
+24.4%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+65.5%
|
110 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+36.5%
|
96 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+31.3%
|
45−50 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+21%
|
160−170 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+29.3%
|
40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+22.6%
|
31 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 210−220 | 232
+9.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+18.8%
|
60−65 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+31.8%
|
21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+25%
|
50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+25.9%
|
55−60 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+30.6%
|
35−40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+27.8%
|
50−55 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+31.8%
|
21−24 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+31.7%
|
41 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+26.3%
|
19 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+31.3%
|
32 |
| Valorant | 160−170
+42.5%
|
113 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+31.8%
|
21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+15.8%
|
75−80 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+6.5%
|
46 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 35
+12.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+10.3%
|
29 |
This is how Quadro P4000 and RX 590 compete in popular games:
- RX 590 is 57% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4000 is 17% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P4000 is 18% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 65% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 590 is 65% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 performs better in 49 tests (79%)
- RX 590 performs better in 13 tests (21%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.27 | 22.22 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 15 November 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 175 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has a 23% higher aggregate performance score, and 43% lower power consumption.
RX 590, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 590 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 590 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.
