GeForce GTX 770M SLI vs Quadro P4000 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with GeForce GTX 770M SLI, including specs and performance data.

P4000 Mobile
2017
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
18.32
+47.3%

P4000 Mobile outperforms 770M SLI by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking327430
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.10no data
Power efficiency14.206.43
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGP104no data
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date11 January 2017 (8 years ago)30 May 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$819.61 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores17921920
Core clock speed1227 MHz811 MHz
Boost clock speed1228 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million2x 2540 Million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate137.4no data
Floating-point processing power4.398 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs112no data
L1 Cache672 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MBno data

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)no data
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2x 3 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit2x 192 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz4000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus++
3D Stereo+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.

DirectX1211
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-
CUDA6.1+

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.

P4000 Mobile 18.32
+47.3%
GTX 770M SLI 12.44

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.

P4000 Mobile 15433
+61.3%
GTX 770M SLI 9569

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.32 12.44
Recency 11 January 2017 30 May 2013
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 150 Watt

P4000 Mobile has a 47.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 770M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 770M SLI is a mobile workstation one.

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 P4000 Mobile
Quadro P4000 Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M SLI
GeForce GTX 770M SLI

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.


4.2 31 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 770M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P4000 Mobile or GeForce GTX 770M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.