Tesla M10 vs Quadro K4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4000 and Tesla M10, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Tesla M10 outperforms K4000 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 559 | 531 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.61 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.10 | 2.39 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GK106 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2013 (11 years ago) | 18 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,269 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 768 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1306 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,540 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 | 52.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS | 1.672 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 40 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1404 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 5.0 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.80 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 1 March 2013 | 18 May 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro K4000 has 181.3% lower power consumption.
Tesla M10, on the other hand, has a 10% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K4000 and Tesla M10.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
