Quadro 4000 vs GRID K520

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID K520 and Quadro 4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GRID K520
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
9.13
+138%

GRID K520 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking479706
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.340.18
Power efficiency2.781.85
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF100
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)2 November 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,599 $1,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GRID K520 has 89% better value for money than Quadro 4000.

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 cores1536256
Core clock speed745 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate95.3615.20
Floating-point processing power2.289 TFLOPS0.4864 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12832

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm241 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz702 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s89.86 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA3.02.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

GRID K520 9.13
+138%
Quadro 4000 3.83

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.

GRID K520 3516
+138%
Quadro 4000 1477

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.

GRID K520 40
+90.5%
Quadro 4000 21

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.13 3.83
Recency 23 July 2013 2 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 142 Watt

GRID K520 has a 138.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 4000, on the other hand, has 58.5% lower power consumption.

The GRID K520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GRID K520
GRID K520
NVIDIA Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.3 3 votes

Rate GRID K520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 188 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.