GeForce 8800 GT vs Quadro 4000M

Place in the ranking	733	1047
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.32	0.02
Power efficiency	2.36	0.68
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF104	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 4000M has 1500% better value for money than 8800 GT.

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	336	112
Core clock speed	475 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	26.60	33.60
Floating-point processing power	0.6384 TFLOPS	0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	56	56

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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	Single Slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	2-way

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	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	57.6 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

no data

128bit

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	2.1	+

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 4000M 3.38
+177%

8800 GT 1.22

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 4000M 1302
+176%

8800 GT 471

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

71
+196%

24−27

−196%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.32

14.54

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +186%	14−16 −186%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +186%	14−16 −186%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +186%	14−16 −186%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

This is how Quadro 4000M and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

Quadro 4000M is 196% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.38	1.22
Recency	22 February 2011	29 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	105 Watt

Quadro 4000M has a 177% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

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