Quadro P4000 Mobile vs Radeon RX Vega M GH
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GH with Quadro P4000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
P4000 Mobile outperforms M GH by a moderate 19% 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 | 382 | 335 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.23 |
| Power efficiency | 12.18 | 14.49 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 11 January 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $819.61 |
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 | 1536 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1063 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1190 MHz | 1228 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 114.2 | 137.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.656 TFLOPS | 4.398 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 96 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | IGP | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 192 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 | No outputs |
| Display Port | no data | 1.4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 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_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 59
−18.6%
| 70−75
+18.6%
|
| 1440p | 38
−18.4%
| 45−50
+18.4%
|
| 4K | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 11.71 |
| 1440p | no data | 18.21 |
| 4K | no data | 27.32 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−12.4%
|
100−105
+12.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 81
−17.3%
|
95−100
+17.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−12.4%
|
100−105
+12.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−15.4%
|
60−65
+15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−13.6%
|
100−105
+13.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−13.6%
|
75−80
+13.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−18.6%
|
70−75
+18.6%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−11.1%
|
140−150
+11.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 66
−13.6%
|
75−80
+13.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−12.4%
|
100−105
+12.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
−15.9%
|
240−250
+15.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 108
−11.1%
|
120−130
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
−17.6%
|
60−65
+17.6%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−13.6%
|
100−105
+13.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−13.6%
|
75−80
+13.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
−16.7%
|
70−75
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−18.6%
|
70−75
+18.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
−16.7%
|
70−75
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−11.1%
|
140−150
+11.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60
−16.7%
|
70−75
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
−15.8%
|
110−120
+15.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−13.6%
|
75−80
+13.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−18.6%
|
70−75
+18.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−11.1%
|
140−150
+11.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
−13.6%
|
100−105
+13.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−11.1%
|
130−140
+11.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
−17.2%
|
170−180
+17.2%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−18.1%
|
170−180
+18.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 43
−16.3%
|
50−55
+16.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−18.8%
|
95−100
+18.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−14%
|
65−70
+14%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
This is how RX Vega M GH and P4000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- P4000 Mobile is 19% faster in 1080p
- P4000 Mobile is 18% faster in 1440p
- P4000 Mobile is 7% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.74 | 18.72 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 11 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
RX Vega M GH has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 14% more advanced lithography process.
P4000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 19% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GH in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GH is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
