Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5
3.82
PRO WX 2100
2018
2048 MB GDDR5
4.73
+23.8%
Radeon PRO WX 2100 outperforms Quadro 4000 by 24% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 664 | 609 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.48 | 3.02 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Polaris (2016−2019) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Polaris 12 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 November 2010 (13 years old) | 21 March 2018 (6 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $149 |
| Current price | $295 (0.2x MSRP) | $343 (2.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
PRO WX 2100 has 529% better value for money than Quadro 4000.
Technical specs
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 | 256 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1219 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.20 | 39.01 |
| Floating-point performance | 486.4 gflops | 1,248 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro 4000 and Radeon PRO WX 2100 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
Memory
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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2808 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 48 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | no data |
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.
Radeon PRO WX 2100 outperforms Quadro 4000 by 24% 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%
Radeon PRO WX 2100 outperforms Quadro 4000 by 24% in Passmark.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.82 | 4.73 |
| Recency | 2 November 2010 | 21 March 2018 |
| Cost | $1199 | $149 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 4000 is a workstation card while Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
