Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire vs Quadro M4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000 with Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M4000
2015
8 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
16.69

HD 8970M Crossfire outperforms M4000 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking320301
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.91no data
Power efficiency9.956.43
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameGM204Neptune CF
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date29 June 2015 (9 years ago)1 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$791 no data

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 cores16642560
Core clock speed773 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt200 Watt
Texture fill rate80.39no data
Floating-point processing power2.573 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs104no data

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 datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit2x 256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz4800 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 192 GB/sno data
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 data
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 compatibility

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

DirectX1211.1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
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:

Full HD60−65
−11.7%
67
+11.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p13.18no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
World of Tanks 128
+0%
128
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how Quadro M4000 and HD 8970M Crossfire compete in popular games:

  • HD 8970M Crossfire is 12% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.69 17.96
Recency 29 June 2015 1 May 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 200 Watt

Quadro M4000 has an age advantage of 3 years, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

HD 8970M Crossfire, on the other hand, has a 7.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M4000 and Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire.

Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation card while Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire is a notebook one.


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

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 8970M Crossfire
Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire

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
4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.