Radeon R7 370 vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Radeon R7 370, including specs and performance data.
P4000 Mobile outperforms R7 370 by an impressive 73% 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 | 315 | 459 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.10 | 5.68 |
| Power efficiency | 14.15 | 7.42 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Trinidad |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 18 June 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R7 370 has 83% better value for money than P4000 Mobile.
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 62.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.398 TFLOPS | 1.997 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 64 |
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 | 152 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 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 179.2 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
| 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 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
| 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 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 HD | 75−80
+63%
| 46
−63%
|
| 1440p | 95−100
+66.7%
| 57
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+50%
| 20
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.93
−237%
| 3.24
+237%
|
| 1440p | 8.63
−230%
| 2.61
+230%
|
| 4K | 27.32
−267%
| 7.45
+267%
|
- R7 370 has 237% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 370 has 230% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R7 370 has 267% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how P4000 Mobile and R7 370 compete in popular games:
- P4000 Mobile is 63% faster in 1080p
- P4000 Mobile is 67% faster in 1440p
- P4000 Mobile is 50% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.56 | 10.71 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 18 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 110 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has a 73.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 370 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 370 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.
