Radeon RX 6500 XT vs Quadro M4000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000M with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.

M4000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
15.95

RX 6500 XT outperforms M4000M by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking339220
Place by popularitynot in top-10083
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data58.69
Power efficiency10.9415.92
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGM204Navi 24
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)19 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

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 cores1,2801024
Core clock speed975 MHz2610 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHz2815 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt107 Watt
Texture fill rate78.00180.2
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS5.765 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs8064
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s143.9 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 outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+
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 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
OpenCL1.22.2
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA5.2-

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.

M4000M 15.95
RX 6500 XT 24.83
+55.7%

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 6148
RX 6500 XT 9569
+55.6%

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
RX 6500 XT 22954
+124%

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
RX 6500 XT 15712
+103%

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
RX 6500 XT 91909
+86.8%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

M4000M 56
RX 6500 XT 111
+98%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

M4000M 89
RX 6500 XT 140
+58%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

M4000M 110
+27.1%
RX 6500 XT 87

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

M4000M 80
RX 6500 XT 150
+88.4%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

M4000M 68
RX 6500 XT 91
+32.7%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

M4000M 27
RX 6500 XT 58
+112%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

M4000M 45
RX 6500 XT 67
+50.8%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

M4000M 7
RX 6500 XT 60
+822%

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 HD68
+9.7%
62
−9.7%
1440p16−18
−75%
28
+75%
4K10−12
−60%
16
+60%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.21
1440pno data7.11
4Kno data12.44

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−188%
72
+188%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−50%
50−55
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−96.2%
51
+96.2%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−55.8%
80−85
+55.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−56.3%
50−55
+56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−116%
54
+116%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−50%
55−60
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−47.7%
65−70
+47.7%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−40.8%
140−150
+40.8%
Hitman 3 30−35
−61.3%
50−55
+61.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−40.7%
110−120
+40.7%
Metro Exodus 55−60
−54.5%
85−90
+54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−45.5%
60−65
+45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−61.5%
80−85
+61.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−27.2%
100−110
+27.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−50%
50−55
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−65.4%
43
+65.4%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−55.8%
80−85
+55.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−56.3%
50−55
+56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−36%
34
+36%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−50%
55−60
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−47.7%
65−70
+47.7%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−40.8%
140−150
+40.8%
Hitman 3 30−35
−61.3%
50−55
+61.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−40.7%
110−120
+40.7%
Metro Exodus 55−60
−54.5%
85−90
+54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−45.5%
60−65
+45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−106%
107
+106%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−39.5%
50−55
+39.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−27.2%
100−110
+27.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−50%
50−55
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−19.2%
31
+19.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−56.3%
50−55
+56.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−20%
30
+20%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−50%
55−60
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−40.8%
140−150
+40.8%
Hitman 3 30−35
−61.3%
50−55
+61.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−13.6%
92
+13.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−59.6%
83
+59.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−42.1%
54
+42.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+224%
25
−224%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−45.5%
60−65
+45.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−51.6%
45−50
+51.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−52%
35−40
+52%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
−62.5%
24−27
+62.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−76.9%
23
+76.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−64.7%
27−30
+64.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−88.9%
17
+88.9%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−47.4%
27−30
+47.4%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−65.9%
140−150
+65.9%
Hitman 3 18−20
−52.6%
27−30
+52.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−100%
66
+100%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−96.6%
57
+96.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−86.7%
56
+86.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−42.9%
140−150
+42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−57.7%
40−45
+57.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−50%
24−27
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−58.3%
18−20
+58.3%
Hitman 3 12−14
+20%
10
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−56.8%
120−130
+56.8%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−75%
27−30
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−86.7%
28
+86.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−66.7%
14−16
+66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+33.3%
6
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−54.5%
30−35
+54.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−56.3%
25
+56.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−66.7%
10
+66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−50%
21−24
+50%

This is how M4000M and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:

  • M4000M is 10% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6500 XT is 75% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6500 XT is 60% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M4000M is 224% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6500 XT is 188% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M4000M is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
  • RX 6500 XT is ahead in 69 tests (96%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.95 24.83
Recency 18 August 2015 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 107 Watt

M4000M has 7% lower power consumption.

RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 55.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6500 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 6500 XT is a desktop 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 M4000M
Quadro M4000M
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 3302 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT 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.