Arc A380 vs Quadro K4000

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4000 with Arc A380, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K4000
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
6.08

Arc A380 outperforms K4000 by a whopping 130% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking563343
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.6042.80
Power efficiency6.0514.83
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK106DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 March 2013 (12 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,269 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Arc A380 has 7033% better value for money than Quadro K4000.

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 cores7681024
Core clock speed810 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors2,540 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate51.84131.2
Floating-point processing power1.244 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs2432
TMUs6464
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length241 mm222 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount3 GB6 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1404 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth134.8 GB/s186.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA3.0-
DLSS-+

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.

Quadro K4000 6.08
Arc A380 13.97
+130%

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 K4000 2719
Arc A380 6247
+130%

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 HD18−21
−161%
47
+161%

Cost per frame, $

1080p70.50
−2124%
3.17
+2124%
  • Arc A380 has 2124% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 65
+0%
65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 183
+0%
183
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 48
+0%
48
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 122
+0%
122
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+0%
33
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 32
+0%
32
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+0%
72
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 40
+0%
40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 66
+0%
66
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how Quadro K4000 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 161% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.08 13.97
Recency 1 March 2013 14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 75 Watt

Arc A380 has a 129.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 6.7% lower power consumption.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A380 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K4000
Quadro K4000
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 199 votes

Rate Quadro K4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 879 votes

Rate Arc A380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K4000 or Arc A380, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.