GeForce 8800M GTX SLI vs Quadro K4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4000M with GeForce 8800M GTX SLI, including specs and performance data.
K4000M outperforms 8800M SLI by a whopping 161% 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 | 673 | 942 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.79 | 1.12 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | NB8E-GTX |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 19 November 2007 (18 years ago) |
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 | 960 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 601 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1508 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.08 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.154 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 80 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | no data |
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 | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 10 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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 | 47
+161%
| 18−20
−161%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+63.2%
|
35−40
−63.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+121%
|
35−40
−121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+63.2%
|
35−40
−63.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+63.2%
|
35−40
−63.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+89.5%
|
18−20
−89.5%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how K4000M and 8800M GTX SLI compete in popular games:
- K4000M is 161% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the K4000M is 667% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, K4000M surpassed 8800M GTX SLI in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.93 | 1.89 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 19 November 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
K4000M has a 160.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800M GTX SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
