Quadro 4000 vs Quadro M1200

Place in the ranking	505	709
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.19
Power efficiency	12.89	1.87
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM107	GF100
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	2 November 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$1,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	640	256
Core clock speed	1093 MHz	475 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	142 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.72	15.20
Floating-point processing power	1.399 TFLOPS	0.4864 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	40	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-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-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	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	702 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	89.86 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	2.0

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M1200 8.41
+119%

Quadro 4000 3.84

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 M1200 3235
+119%

Quadro 4000 1476

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

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 OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro M1200 10019
+99.7%

Quadro 4000 5018

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	32 +129%	14−16 −129%
4K	11 +120%	5−6 −120%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	85.64
4K	no data	239.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Elden Ring	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +125%	12−14 −125%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
Valorant	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +125%	12−14 −125%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Dota 2	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Elden Ring	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +125%	16−18 −125%
Fortnite	45−50 +133%	21−24 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Valorant	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
World of Tanks	120−130 +129%	55−60 −129%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +125%	12−14 −125%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Dota 2	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +125%	16−18 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Valorant	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Elden Ring	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +133%	18−20 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
World of Tanks	60−65 +126%	27−30 −126%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Valorant	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Elden Ring	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Fortnite	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Valorant	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%

This is how Quadro M1200 and Quadro 4000 compete in popular games:

Quadro M1200 is 129% faster in 1080p
Quadro M1200 is 120% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.41	3.84
Recency	11 January 2017	2 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	142 Watt

Quadro M1200 has a 119% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 215.6% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1200 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro 4000 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.