RTX A2000 Mobile vs Quadro M4000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000M and RTX A2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

M4000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
15.72

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking347219
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.0118.69
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGM204GA106
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)

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 cores1,2802560
Core clock speed975 MHz893 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHz1358 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million13,250 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate78.00108.6
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS6.953 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs8080
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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 sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s176.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no 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 compatibility

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

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA5.28.6
DLSS-+

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.

M4000M 15.72
RTX A2000 Mobile 25.35
+61.3%

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
    • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

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.

M4000M 6146
RTX A2000 Mobile 9909
+61.2%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

M4000M 10259
RTX A2000 Mobile 18058
+76%

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.

M4000M 7723
RTX A2000 Mobile 13157
+70.4%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

M4000M 49204
RTX A2000 Mobile 60336
+22.6%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

M4000M 56
RTX A2000 Mobile 96
+72%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

M4000M 89
RTX A2000 Mobile 142
+60.4%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

M4000M 110
+0.4%
RTX A2000 Mobile 110

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

M4000M 80
RTX A2000 Mobile 135
+69.5%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

M4000M 68
RTX A2000 Mobile 116
+69.9%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

M4000M 27
RTX A2000 Mobile 45
+65.4%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

M4000M 45
RTX A2000 Mobile 70
+57.3%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

M4000M 7
RTX A2000 Mobile 11
+64.6%

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 HD75
−5.3%
79
+5.3%
1440p24−27
−79.2%
43
+79.2%
4K20
−85%
37
+85%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−77.8%
45−50
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−131%
74
+131%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−50%
75−80
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−77.8%
45−50
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+3.2%
31
−3.2%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−108%
135
+108%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−61.9%
65−70
+61.9%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−63.6%
72
+63.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−43.6%
55−60
+43.6%
Valorant 65−70
−69.2%
110
+69.2%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−50%
75−80
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−77.8%
45−50
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+28%
25
−28%
Dota 2 55−60
−109%
119
+109%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−54.4%
88
+54.4%
Fortnite 85−90
−45.5%
120−130
+45.5%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−66.2%
108
+66.2%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−61.9%
65−70
+61.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
−86%
106
+86%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−20.5%
53
+20.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
−41.6%
160−170
+41.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−43.6%
55−60
+43.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−71.4%
80−85
+71.4%
Valorant 65−70
−6.2%
69
+6.2%
World of Tanks 200−210
−29.2%
260−270
+29.2%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−50%
75−80
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−77.8%
45−50
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+60%
20
−60%
Dota 2 55−60
−126%
129
+126%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−36.8%
75−80
+36.8%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−44.6%
94
+44.6%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−61.9%
65−70
+61.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
−41.6%
160−170
+41.6%
Valorant 65−70
−58.5%
100−110
+58.5%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Dota 2 24−27
−108%
50
+108%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−108%
50
+108%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
−15.9%
170−180
+15.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
World of Tanks 110−120
−53.2%
170−180
+53.2%
Battlefield 5 30−35
−62.5%
50−55
+62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−90%
75−80
+90%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−57.5%
63
+57.5%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
−64%
40−45
+64%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−40%
49
+40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−77.3%
35−40
+77.3%
Valorant 40−45
−75%
70−75
+75%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Dota 2 27−30
−57.1%
44
+57.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
−63%
44
+63%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−81.8%
20−22
+81.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−68.1%
75−80
+68.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−60%
16−18
+60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−63%
44
+63%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Dota 2 27−30
−157%
72
+157%
Far Cry 5 20−22
−70%
30−35
+70%
Fortnite 18−20
−77.8%
30−35
+77.8%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−52.2%
35
+52.2%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−83.3%
21−24
+83.3%
Valorant 18−20
−88.9%
30−35
+88.9%

This is how M4000M and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 5% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 79% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 85% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M4000M is 60% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A2000 Mobile is 157% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M4000M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is ahead in 61 test (95%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.72 25.35
Recency 18 August 2015 12 April 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 95 Watt

RTX A2000 Mobile has a 61.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 5.3% lower power consumption.

The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000M in performance tests.

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 M4000M
Quadro M4000M
NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
RTX A2000 Mobile

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.


4.1
145 votes

Rate Quadro M4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8
101 vote

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M4000M or RTX A2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.