Radeon R7 250 vs Quadro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000 with Radeon R7 250, including specs and performance data.
M4000 outperforms R7 250 by a whopping 532% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 314 | 803 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.59 | 0.10 |
| Power efficiency | 9.94 | 2.90 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Oland |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M4000 has 5490% better value for money than R7 250.
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 | 1664 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 25.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.573 TFLOPS | 0.8064 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 104 | 24 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | N/A |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 GB/s | 72 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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| 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.
| DirectX | 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 130−140
+519%
| 21
−519%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.08 | 4.24 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M4000 and R7 250 compete in popular games:
- Quadro M4000 is 519% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.32 | 2.74 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro M4000 has a 532.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R7 250, on the other hand, has 60% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 250 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
