Arc A310 vs Quadro M4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000 with Arc A310, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M4000
2015
8 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
17.32
+22.1%

M4000 outperforms Arc A310 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking326375
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.17no data
Power efficiency9.9313.02
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGM204DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date29 June 2015 (9 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$791 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

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 cores1664768
Core clock speed773 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate80.3964.00
Floating-point processing power2.573 TFLOPS3.072 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs10432
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length241 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 192 GB/s124.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Syncno data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
High-Performance Video I/O6+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA5.2-
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 M4000 17.32
+22.1%
Arc A310 14.19

  • Passmark

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 M4000 6672
+22%
Arc A310 5468

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 HD40−45
+17.6%
34
−17.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p19.78no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 54
+0%
54
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Atomic Heart 40
+0%
40
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Atomic Heart 27
+0%
27
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 44
+0%
44
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how Quadro M4000 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M4000 is 18% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.32 14.19
Recency 29 June 2015 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro M4000 has a 22.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Arc A310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A310 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A310 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 M4000
Quadro M4000
Intel Arc A310
Arc A310

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.


3.6
245 votes

Rate Quadro M4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7
260 votes

Rate Arc A310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M4000 or Arc A310, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.