Radeon R7 260X vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Radeon R7 260X, including specs and performance data.
P4000 Mobile outperforms R7 260X by a whopping 145% 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 | 314 | 557 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.93 | 3.14 |
| Power efficiency | 14.00 | 4.97 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Bonaire |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $139 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
P4000 Mobile has 153% better value for money than R7 260X.
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 | 1792 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 61.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.398 TFLOPS | 1.971 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 56 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 170 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 104 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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | 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.
| DirectX | 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 18.68 | 7.63 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 115 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has a 144.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 15% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 260X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
