Quadro 400 vs GeForce 840M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 840M with Quadro 400, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 840M
2014
4 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
2.83
+645%

840M outperforms 400 by a whopping 645% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7951264
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency5.880.81
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGM108GT216
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date12 March 2014 (10 years ago)5 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$169

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores38448
Core clock speed1029 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate17.987.200
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPS0.108 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs1616

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data163 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1001 MHz770 MHz
Memory bandwidth16.02 GB/s12.32 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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, 1x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+1.2

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.

GeForce 840M 2.83
+645%
Quadro 400 0.38

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.

GeForce 840M 1092
+638%
Quadro 400 148

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:

900p45
+650%
6−7
−650%
Full HD17
+750%
2−3
−750%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data84.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+667%
3−4
−667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how GeForce 840M and Quadro 400 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 840M is 650% faster in 900p
  • GeForce 840M is 750% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.83 0.38
Recency 12 March 2014 5 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 32 Watt

GeForce 840M has a 644.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 400, on the other hand, has 3.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 400 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 840M is a notebook card while Quadro 400 is a workstation one.


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 GeForce 840M
GeForce 840M
NVIDIA Quadro 400
Quadro 400

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.


3.4 938 votes

Rate GeForce 840M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 13 votes

Rate Quadro 400 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.