Quadro NVS 290 vs Quadro 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000 and Quadro NVS 290, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 142 Watt
3.83
+549%

4000 outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 549% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7061204
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.180.03
Power efficiency1.851.93
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF100G86
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date2 November 2010 (14 years ago)4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 4000 has 500% better value for money than NVS 290.

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 cores25616
Core clock speed475 MHz459 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt21 Watt
Texture fill rate15.203.672
Floating-point processing power0.4864 TFLOPS0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs328

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length241 mm168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed702 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.86 GB/s6.4 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x DMS-59

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.01.1

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.

Quadro 4000 3.83
+549%
NVS 290 0.59

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
+548%
NVS 290 228

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 0.59
Recency 2 November 2010 4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 21 Watt

Quadro 4000 has a 549.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 576.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.


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 Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 188 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 21 vote

Rate Quadro NVS 290 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.