Quadro P500 vs FirePro M4000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro P500 outperforms FirePro M4000 by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 646 | 640 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.39 | 2.54 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde GLM | GP108 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (11 years ago) | 14 November 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Current price | $433 | $300 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P500 has 551% better value for money than FirePro M4000.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1519 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 21.25 |
| Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 679.9 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on FirePro M4000 and Quadro P500 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Memory
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 | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 32.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort |
| StereoOutput3D | 1 | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.0.1 |
| CUDA | no data | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Quadro P500 outperforms FirePro M4000 by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro P500 outperforms FirePro M4000 by 2% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro P500 outperforms FirePro M4000 by 53% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro P500 outperforms FirePro M4000 by 32% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro P500 outperforms FirePro M4000 by 2% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Quadro P500 outperforms FirePro M4000 by 12% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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
+35%
| 20
−35%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14
+55.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
This is how FirePro M4000 and Quadro P500 compete in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is 35% faster than Quadro P500 in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M4000 is 12.5% faster than the Quadro P500.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P500 is 100% faster than the FirePro M4000.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Quadro P500 is ahead in 18 tests (30%)
- there's a draw in 41 test (68%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 4.14 | 4.21 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 14 November 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 18 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FirePro M4000 and Quadro P500.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
