Quadro 4000 vs GeForce GTX 570
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 570 with Quadro 4000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 570 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 166% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 449 | 714 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.12 | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 3.20 | 1.85 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 2 November 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $1,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 570 has 1016% 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 cores | 480 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 142 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 | 15.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.405 TFLOPS | 0.4864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 60 | 32 |
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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1900 MHz (3800 data rate) | 702 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | 89.86 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 Connectors | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 80
+167%
| 30−35
−167%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.36
+816%
| 39.97
−816%
|
- GTX 570 has 816% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+171%
|
21−24
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+207%
|
30−33
−207%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+190%
|
50−55
−190%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+171%
|
21−24
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+207%
|
30−33
−207%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+207%
|
30−33
−207%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+171%
|
21−24
−171%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+170%
|
27−30
−170%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+168%
|
40−45
−168%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
This is how GTX 570 and Quadro 4000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 570 is 167% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.98 | 3.75 |
| Recency | 7 December 2010 | 2 November 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 142 Watt |
GTX 570 has a 166.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 month.
Quadro 4000, on the other hand, has a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 54.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 570 is a desktop card while Quadro 4000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
