Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs Quadro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000 and Radeon AI PRO R9700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
AI PRO R9700 outperforms M4000 by a whopping 306% 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 | 373 | 29 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.45 | 28.00 |
| Power efficiency | 10.32 | 16.76 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 4.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Navi 48 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (11 years ago) | 23 July 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | $1,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
AI PRO R9700 has 1043% better value for money than Quadro M4000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1664 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | 1660 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2920 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 53,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 747.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.573 TFLOPS | 47.84 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 128 |
| TMUs | 104 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 64 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L1 Cache | 624 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 16-pin |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2518 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 GB/s | 644.6 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 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.
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 | 16.07 | 65.24 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 23 July 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 300 Watt |
Quadro M4000 has 150% lower power consumption.
AI PRO R9700, on the other hand, has a 306% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
