Radeon R7 250E vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M with Radeon R7 250E, including specs and performance data.
R7 250E outperforms 4000M by a substantial 30% 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 | 738 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 1.09 |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 5.57 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 20 December 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 250E has 581% 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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6384 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
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
−26.8%
| 90−95
+26.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.32
−422%
| 1.21
+422%
|
- R7 250E has 422% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−25%
|
60−65
+25%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−29.3%
|
75−80
+29.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−25%
|
60−65
+25%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−25%
|
60−65
+25%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
This is how Quadro 4000M and R7 250E compete in popular games:
- R7 250E is 27% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.08 | 3.99 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 20 December 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
Quadro 4000M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R7 250E, on the other hand, has a 29.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 81.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E 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 Radeon R7 250E 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.
