A10G vs Quadro P400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P400 and A10G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro P400
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
4.26

A10G outperforms P400 by a whopping 1039% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking67266
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.02no data
Power efficiency9.8322.40
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGP107GA102
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date7 February 2017 (7 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.99 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 cores2569216
Core clock speed1228 MHz1320 MHz
Boost clock speed1252 MHz1710 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate20.03492.5
Floating-point processing power0.641 TFLOPS31.52 TFLOPS
ROPs1696
TMUs16288
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data72

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length145 mm267 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone8-pin EPS

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 amount2 GB12 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz1563 MHz
Memory bandwidth32.06 GB/s600.2 GB/s

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 Connectors3x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
CUDA6.18.6

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.

Quadro P400 4.26
A10G 48.52
+1039%

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.

Quadro P400 1643
A10G 18723
+1040%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro P400 5620
A10G 164955
+2835%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro P400 5132
A10G 143546
+2697%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Quadro P400 5691
A10G 187763
+3199%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.26 48.52
Recency 7 February 2017 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 150 Watt

Quadro P400 has 400% lower power consumption.

A10G, on the other hand, has a 1039% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The A10G is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.


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 P400
Quadro P400
NVIDIA A10G
A10G

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.


4.1 485 votes

Rate Quadro P400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 40 votes

Rate A10G 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.