GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 vs Quadro M4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000M with GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448, including specs and performance data.
M4000M outperforms 560 Ti 448 by an impressive 93% 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 | 392 | 570 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.49 |
| Power efficiency | 11.27 | 2.78 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 29 November 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $289 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 1,280 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1013 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.00 | 40.99 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.496 TFLOPS | 1.312 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 40 |
| TMUs | 80 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 640 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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
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 | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 152.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 2.0 |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 63
+110%
| 30−35
−110%
|
| 4K | 20
+100%
| 10−12
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.63 |
| 4K | no data | 28.90 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+113%
|
30−33
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+107%
|
30−33
−107%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+105%
|
60−65
−105%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+113%
|
30−33
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+99%
|
100−105
−99%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+109%
|
45−50
−109%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+107%
|
30−33
−107%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+107%
|
27−30
−107%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+105%
|
60−65
−105%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+113%
|
30−33
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+109%
|
45−50
−109%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+107%
|
30−33
−107%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+105%
|
60−65
−105%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+102%
|
55−60
−102%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+106%
|
70−75
−106%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+103%
|
75−80
−103%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+105%
|
40−45
−105%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+96.3%
|
27−30
−96.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
This is how M4000M and GTX 560 Ti 448 compete in popular games:
- M4000M is 110% faster in 1080p
- M4000M is 100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.67 | 7.59 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 29 November 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1280 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 210 Watt |
M4000M has a 93.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 110% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
