GeForce 810A vs Quadro P400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P400 with GeForce 810A, including specs and performance data.
P400 outperforms 810A by a whopping 152% 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 | 740 | 995 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.98 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.13 | 8.03 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119.99 | no data |
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 | 256 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1228 MHz | 719 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1252 MHz | 758 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.03 | 12.13 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.641 TFLOPS | 0.2911 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32.06 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
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 | 3x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 3.5 |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 3.96 | 1.57 |
| Recency | 7 February 2017 | 22 July 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro P400 has a 152.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 810A, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 810A in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P400 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 810A is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
