CMP 30HX vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	188	262
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.59	22.19
Power efficiency	19.80	11.65
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP104	TU116
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	25 February 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

CMP 30HX has 26% better value for money than Quadro P4000.

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	1408
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	125 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	157.1
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	48
TMUs	112	88

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 x4
Length	241 mm	229 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1x 8-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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	336.0 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	4x DisplayPort	No outputs
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.

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.2
CUDA	6.1	7.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro P4000 30.20
+42.7%

CMP 30HX 21.16

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.

Quadro P4000 11613
+42.8%

CMP 30HX 8135

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.

Quadro P4000 41669

CMP 30HX 67947
+63.1%

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

69
+53.3%

45−50

−53.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

11.81
+50.3%

17.76

−50.3%

Quadro P4000 has 50% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +47.5%	40−45 −47.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Elden Ring	100−110 +45.7%	70−75 −45.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +46.7%	60−65 −46.7%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +47.5%	40−45 −47.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +45.3%	95−100 −45.3%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +54%	50−55 −54%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Valorant	120−130 +51.3%	80−85 −51.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +46.7%	60−65 −46.7%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +47.5%	40−45 −47.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Dota 2	100−105 +42.9%	70−75 −42.9%
Elden Ring	100−110 +45.7%	70−75 −45.7%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +54.5%	55−60 −54.5%
Fortnite	140−150 +43%	100−105 −43%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +45.3%	95−100 −45.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +42.9%	70−75 −42.9%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +54%	50−55 −54%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +46.7%	120−130 −46.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +44.3%	70−75 −44.3%
Valorant	120−130 +51.3%	80−85 −51.3%
World of Tanks	270−280 +44.2%	190−200 −44.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +46.7%	60−65 −46.7%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +47.5%	40−45 −47.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +57.5%	40−45 −57.5%
Dota 2	100−105 +42.9%	70−75 −42.9%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +54.5%	55−60 −54.5%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +45.3%	95−100 −45.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +46.7%	120−130 −46.7%
Valorant	120−130 +51.3%	80−85 −51.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +51.4%	35−40 −51.4%
Elden Ring	55−60 +60%	35−40 −60%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +51.4%	35−40 −51.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +45.8%	120−130 −45.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
World of Tanks	190−200 +50%	130−140 −50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +47.5%	40−45 −47.5%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +50%	18−20 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +50%	18−20 −50%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +43.1%	65−70 −43.1%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +50.9%	55−60 −50.9%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +51.1%	45−50 −51.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +56.7%	30−33 −56.7%
Valorant	85−90 +43.3%	60−65 −43.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%
Dota 2	55−60 +57.1%	35−40 −57.1%
Elden Ring	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +57.1%	35−40 −57.1%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +44.6%	65−70 −44.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +57.1%	35−40 −57.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +57.1%	21−24 −57.1%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +61.1%	18−20 −61.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Dota 2	55−60 +57.1%	35−40 −57.1%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +51.9%	27−30 −51.9%
Fortnite	35−40 +44.4%	27−30 −44.4%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +60%	30−33 −60%
Valorant	40−45 +43.3%	30−33 −43.3%

This is how Quadro P4000 and CMP 30HX compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 53% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.20	21.16
Recency	6 February 2017	25 February 2021
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	125 Watt