Radeon R7 250E vs Quadro K4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4000M with Radeon R7 250E, including specs and performance data.
K4000M outperforms R7 250E by a significant 23% 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 | 660 | 719 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.09 |
| Power efficiency | 3.75 | 5.55 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 20 December 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 960 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 601 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.08 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.154 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 80 | 32 |
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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 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 | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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
+34.3%
| 35−40
−34.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.11 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| God of War | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| God of War | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how K4000M and R7 250E compete in popular games:
- K4000M is 34% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.92 | 4.01 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 20 December 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
K4000M has a 22.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R7 250E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 81.8% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250E in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4000M 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.
