Quadro 4000 vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Ti with Quadro 4000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980 Ti
2015
6 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
35.88
+834%

GTX 980 Ti outperforms 4000 by a whopping 834% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking137708
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.390.19
Power efficiency9.881.86
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM200GF100
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date2 June 2015 (9 years ago)2 November 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 $1,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 980 Ti has 7474% 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 cores2816256
Core clock speed1000 MHz475 MHz
Boost clock speed1075 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,000 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate189.415.20
Floating-point processing power6.06 TFLOPS0.4864 TFLOPS
ROPs9632
TMUs17632

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 supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm241 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)600 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s702 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.5 GB/s89.86 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.21x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/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. 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.

GTX 980 Ti 35.88
+834%
Quadro 4000 3.84

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.

GTX 980 Ti 13796
+835%
Quadro 4000 1476

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.

GTX 980 Ti 42988
+757%
Quadro 4000 5018

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.

GTX 980 Ti 126
+500%
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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD99
+890%
10−12
−890%
1440p51
+920%
5−6
−920%
4K53
+960%
5−6
−960%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.56
+1729%
119.90
−1729%
1440p12.73
+1784%
239.80
−1784%
4K12.25
+1858%
239.80
−1858%
  • GTX 980 Ti has 1729% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 980 Ti has 1784% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 980 Ti has 1858% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+943%
7−8
−943%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+850%
8−9
−850%
Elden Ring 120−130
+933%
12−14
−933%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+890%
10−11
−890%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+943%
7−8
−943%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+850%
8−9
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+844%
18−20
−844%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+878%
9−10
−878%
Red Dead Redemption 2 70−75
+929%
7−8
−929%
Valorant 140−150
+921%
14−16
−921%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+890%
10−11
−890%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+943%
7−8
−943%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+850%
8−9
−850%
Dota 2 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Elden Ring 120−130
+933%
12−14
−933%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+933%
9−10
−933%
Fortnite 160−170
+906%
16−18
−906%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+844%
18−20
−844%
Grand Theft Auto V 34
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+878%
9−10
−878%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 190−200
+972%
18−20
−972%
Red Dead Redemption 2 70−75
+929%
7−8
−929%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+900%
5−6
−900%
Valorant 140−150
+921%
14−16
−921%
World of Tanks 270−280
+933%
27−30
−933%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 73
+943%
7−8
−943%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+943%
7−8
−943%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+850%
8−9
−850%
Dota 2 110−120
+858%
12−14
−858%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+933%
9−10
−933%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+844%
18−20
−844%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 190−200
+972%
18−20
−972%
Valorant 140−150
+921%
14−16
−921%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
Elden Ring 70−75
+914%
7−8
−914%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+843%
7−8
−843%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+872%
18−20
−872%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
World of Tanks 220−230
+854%
24−27
−854%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+871%
7−8
−871%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+858%
12−14
−858%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+920%
10−11
−920%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+888%
8−9
−888%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%
Valorant 100−110
+990%
10−11
−990%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Dota 2 79
+888%
8−9
−888%
Elden Ring 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Grand Theft Auto V 79
+888%
8−9
−888%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+850%
12−14
−850%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 79
+888%
8−9
−888%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+900%
3−4
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Dota 2 132
+843%
14−16
−843%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+940%
5−6
−940%
Fortnite 45−50
+880%
5−6
−880%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+867%
6−7
−867%
Valorant 55−60
+1020%
5−6
−1020%

This is how GTX 980 Ti and Quadro 4000 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980 Ti is 890% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980 Ti is 920% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980 Ti is 960% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.88 3.84
Recency 2 June 2015 2 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 142 Watt

GTX 980 Ti has a 834.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 4000, on the other hand, has 76.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro 4000 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 GTX 980 Ti
GeForce GTX 980 Ti
NVIDIA Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000

Other comparisons

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.


4.2 1614 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 Ti 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.