GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M with GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4080 SUPER outperforms 4000M by a whopping 2561% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 801 | 8 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 99 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 46.73 |
| Power efficiency | 2.36 | 19.62 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | AD103 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 4080 SUPER has 29106% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 10240 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 45,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | 816.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6384 TFLOPS | 52.22 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 112 |
| TMUs | 56 | 320 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 10 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 64 MB |
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 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 310 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 1438 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 736.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
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
−262%
| 257
+262%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−2867%
| 178
+2867%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−2825%
| 117
+2825%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.32
−62.7%
| 3.89
+62.7%
|
| 1440p | 74.83
−1233%
| 5.61
+1233%
|
| 4K | 112.25
−1215%
| 8.54
+1215%
|
- RTX 4080 SUPER has 63% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4080 SUPER has 1233% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4080 SUPER has 1215% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−3091%
|
351
+3091%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−4050%
|
249
+4050%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−1691%
|
190−200
+1691%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−3027%
|
344
+3027%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−4000%
|
246
+4000%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−1000%
|
120−130
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−2567%
|
240
+2567%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−1676%
|
300−350
+1676%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−2193%
|
344
+2193%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−3750%
|
308
+3750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1143%
|
170−180
+1143%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1040%
|
500−550
+1040%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−1691%
|
190−200
+1691%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−2982%
|
339
+2982%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−379%
|
270−280
+379%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−3867%
|
238
+3867%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−2400%
|
750−800
+2400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−1000%
|
120−130
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−2422%
|
227
+2422%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−1676%
|
300−350
+1676%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−2180%
|
342
+2180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−3463%
|
285
+3463%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−2138%
|
179
+2138%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−4440%
|
227
+4440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1143%
|
170−180
+1143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−5370%
|
547
+5370%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1040%
|
500−550
+1040%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−1691%
|
190−200
+1691%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−3217%
|
199
+3217%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−2400%
|
750−800
+2400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−1000%
|
120−130
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−2256%
|
212
+2256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−2047%
|
322
+2047%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1143%
|
170−180
+1143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−2530%
|
263
+2530%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1040%
|
500−550
+1040%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−1676%
|
300−350
+1676%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−3814%
|
274
+3814%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−2143%
|
500−550
+2143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 169 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−16100%
|
162
+16100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−525%
|
170−180
+525%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1517%
|
450−500
+1517%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6300%
|
128
+6300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−4060%
|
208
+4060%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3725%
|
306
+3725%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4320%
|
221
+4320%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2417%
|
150−160
+2417%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1147%
|
187
+1147%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−2100%
|
300−350
+2100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 61 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−2456%
|
230−240
+2456%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4000%
|
80−85
+4000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−7150%
|
145
+7150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−10067%
|
305
+10067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−2300%
|
95−100
+2300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1875%
|
75−80
+1875%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 204
+0%
|
204
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 4000M and RTX 4080 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 262% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 2867% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 2825% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 4080 SUPER is 16100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER performs better in 53 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.06 | 81.43 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 320 Watt |
Quadro 4000M has 220% lower power consumption.
RTX 4080 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 2561.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
