Quadro FX 2500M vs FirePro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M4000 and Quadro FX 2500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M4000 outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 635% 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 | 737 | 1266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.78 | 0.88 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Chelsea | G71 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 29 September 2005 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-III |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 38.4 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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 | 27
+800%
| 3−4
−800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 33.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+89.3%
|
27−30
−89.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+218%
|
10−12
−218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+89.3%
|
27−30
−89.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+218%
|
10−12
−218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+89.3%
|
27−30
−89.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how FirePro M4000 and FX 2500M compete in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is 800% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro M4000 is 1350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, FirePro M4000 surpassed FX 2500M in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.60 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 27 June 2012 | 29 September 2005 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 45 Watt |
FirePro M4000 has a 634.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 36.4% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M 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.
