Quadro M4000 vs GeForce GTX TITAN
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by a significant 22% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 240 | 296 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.76 | 10.70 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) |
| GPU code name | GK110 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 19 February 2013 (11 years ago) | 29 June 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $791 |
| Current price | $640 (0.6x MSRP) | $314 (0.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M4000 has 288% better value for money than GTX TITAN.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2688 | 1664 |
| CUDA cores | 2688 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 837 MHz | 773 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 876 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 187.5 billion/sec | 80.39 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,709 gflops | 2,573 gflops |
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 Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | 241 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | One 8-pin and one 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| SLI options | no data | + |
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 | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384-bit GDDR5 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 6008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | Up to 192 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Live | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | 5.2 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by 22% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by 22% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by 33% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by 10% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by 6% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by 55% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
Unigine Heaven 4.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.
Benchmark coverage: 1%
GeForce GTX TITAN outperforms Quadro M4000 by 86% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.
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 | 21.18 | 17.30 |
| Recency | 19 February 2013 | 29 June 2015 |
| Cost | $999 | $791 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 120 Watt |
The GeForce GTX TITAN is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX TITAN is a desktop card while Quadro M4000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
