Quadro FX 4000 vs Quadro 4000

Place in the ranking	706	1351
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.18	no data
Power efficiency	1.85	0.13
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	GF100	NV40
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	2 November 2010 (14 years ago)	1 April 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,199	$2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 4000 and FX 4000 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	no data
Core clock speed	475 MHz	375 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	222 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	142 Watt	142 Watt
Texture fill rate	15.20	4.500
Floating-point processing power	0.4864 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	32	12

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	AGP 8x
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	2x Molex

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	702 MHz	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	89.86 GB/s	32 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

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	5.1	3.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
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. 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.

Quadro 4000 3.83
+1373%

FX 4000 0.26

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.

Quadro 4000 1477
+1362%

FX 4000 101

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	3.83	0.26
Recency	2 November 2010	1 April 2004
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	130 nm

Quadro 4000 has a 1373.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.