GeForce GTX 280M vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M with GeForce GTX 280M, including specs and performance data.
Quadro 4000M outperforms GTX 280M by a whopping 126% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 701 | 935 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.99 | 0.17 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Fermi | N10E-GTX |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
| Current price | $118 (0.3x MSRP) | $140 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro 4000M has 482% better value for money than GTX 280M.
Detailed specifications
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 | 336 | 128 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | 38 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 638.4 gflops | 374.5 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 562 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro 4000M and GeForce GTX 280M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 | large | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-IV |
| SLI options | no data | + |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | Up to 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 61 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 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA |
| HDMI | 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.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 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.
Quadro 4000M outperforms GeForce GTX 280M by 126% based on our aggregate 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%
Quadro 4000M outperforms GeForce GTX 280M by 126% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro 4000M outperforms GeForce GTX 280M by 61% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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
+137%
| 30−35
−137%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
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 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how Quadro 4000M and GTX 280M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 4000M is 137% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 4000M is ahead in 50 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.37 | 1.49 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 2 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
The Quadro 4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 280M 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
