Radeon HD 6730M vs Quadro M4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
M6-8Q M60-1Q M60-2Q M60-4A M60-8Q Quadro M3000 SE Quadro M4000 Quadro M5000 Quadro M5000 SE Tesla M6 Tesla M60
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
6610M 6625M 6630M 6630M Mac Edition 6650M 6730M 6750M 6770M 6770M Mac Edition 7610M 7650M Rebrand 7670M Rebrand

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000 with Radeon HD 6730M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M4000
2015, $791
8 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
15.94
+1185%

M4000 outperforms HD 6730M by a whopping 1185% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
HD 6730M HD 6730M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3681085
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.40no data
Power efficiency10.212.72
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGM204Whistler
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date29 June 2015 (10 years ago)4 January 2011 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$791 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores1664480
Core clock speed773 MHz725 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million716 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate80.3917.40
Floating-point processing power2.573 TFLOPS0.696 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs10424
L1 Cache624 KB48 KB
L2 Cache2 MB256 KB

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 192 GB/s25.6 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 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 support

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

DirectX1211.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA5.2-

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:

900p210−220
+1135%
17
−1135%
Full HD290−300
+1161%
23
−1161%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.73no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Quadro M4000 and HD 6730M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M4000 is 1135% faster in 900p
  • Quadro M4000 is 1161% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 48 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 15.94 1.24
Recency 29 June 2015 4 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro M4000 has a 1185.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6730M, on the other hand, has 242.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6730M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6730M is a notebook 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
AMD Radeon HD 6730M
Radeon HD 6730M
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
P106-100 P106 100
HD 6730M Radeon HD 6730M
vs
GTS 250M GeForce GTS 250M
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
RTX A500 RTX A500
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
HD 8610G HD 8610G
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
HD 8550G HD 8550G
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
HD 8350G HD 8350G
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
HD 8310G HD 8310G
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
8800M GTX SLI GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
8800M GTS GeForce 8800M GTS
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
8400M G GeForce 8400M G
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
R7 450 OEM R7 450 OEM
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
HD 8470 OEM HD 8470 OEM
Quadro M4000 Quadro M4000
vs
GT 520 PCI GT 520 PCI

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.5 278 votes

Rate Quadro M4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 4 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6730M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M4000 or Radeon HD 6730M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.