Radeon R9 M395X vs Quadro P4000 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Radeon R9 M395X, including specs and performance data.

P4000 Mobile
2017, $820
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
18.56
+52.8%

P4000 Mobile outperforms R9 M395X by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking326440
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.15no data
Power efficiency14.2612.53
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGP104Amethyst
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date11 January 2017 (8 years ago)5 May 2015 (10 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 cores17922048
Core clock speed1227 MHz723 MHz
Boost clock speed1228 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate137.492.54
Floating-point processing power4.398 TFLOPS2.961 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs112128
L1 Cache672 KB512 KB
L2 Cache2 MB512 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).

Laptop sizelargelarge
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/s160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity-+
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
TrueAudio-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+
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.

DirectX12DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.46.3
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.2Not Listed
Vulkan1.2.131-
Mantle-+
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 18.56
+52.8%
R9 M395X 12.15

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.

P4000 Mobile 12259
+54.8%
R9 M395X 7921

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 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+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 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+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 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+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 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+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 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+0%
30−33
+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%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+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%
Escape from Tarkov 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+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 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.56 12.15
Recency 11 January 2017 5 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 250 Watt

P4000 Mobile has a 52.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M395X in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 M395X 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
AMD Radeon R9 M395X
Radeon R9 M395X

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
4.1 18 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M395X 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 Radeon R9 M395X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.