Quadro 4000M vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 with Quadro 4000M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 590 outperforms 4000M by a whopping 160% 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 | 556 | 799 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.65 | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 1.67 | 2.35 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (14 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 590 has 333% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.
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 | 1024 ×2 | 336 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | 26.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.6384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 512 KB |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
| 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 | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | 80 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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
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 | + | 2.1 |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
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:
| 900p | 47
+161%
| 18−20
−161%
|
| Full HD | 111
+56.3%
| 71
−56.3%
|
| 1200p | 112
+180%
| 40−45
−180%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30
+0.4%
| 6.32
−0.4%
|
- GTX 590 and Quadro 4000M have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+227%
|
10−12
−227%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+140%
|
14−16
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+72.9%
|
45−50
−72.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+227%
|
10−12
−227%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+119%
|
55−60
−119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+140%
|
14−16
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+72.9%
|
45−50
−72.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+227%
|
10−12
−227%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+140%
|
14−16
−140%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+72.9%
|
45−50
−72.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+170%
|
21−24
−170%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+203%
|
30−33
−203%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
This is how GTX 590 and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:
- GTX 590 is 161% faster in 900p
- GTX 590 is 56% faster in 1080p
- GTX 590 is 180% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 590 is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 590 surpassed Quadro 4000M in all 57 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.56 | 2.91 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 590 has a 159.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro 4000M, on the other hand, has 265% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 590 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
