GeForce RTX 5080 vs Quadro 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000 with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 2539% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 712 | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.19 | 43.62 |
| Power efficiency | 1.86 | 19.37 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 November 2010 (14 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 5080 has 22858% 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 | 256 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.20 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4864 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 128 |
| TMUs | 32 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 304 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 702 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 960.0 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 10.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 7−8
−2657%
| 193
+2657%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−2980%
| 154
+2980%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−3300%
| 102
+3300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 171.29
−3209%
| 5.18
+3209%
|
| 1440p | 239.80
−3597%
| 6.49
+3597%
|
| 4K | 399.67
−3981%
| 9.79
+3981%
|
- RTX 5080 has 3209% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5080 has 3597% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5080 has 3981% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 800−850
+0%
|
800−850
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 800−850
+0%
|
800−850
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 222
+0%
|
222
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 800−850
+0%
|
800−850
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 4000 and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 2657% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 2980% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 3300% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.79 | 100.00 |
| Recency | 2 November 2010 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 360 Watt |
Quadro 4000 has 153.5% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 2538.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
