GRID K520 vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	196	485
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	18.64	0.39
Power efficiency	19.66	2.79
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP104	GK104
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	6 February 2017 (8 years ago)	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$3,599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Quadro P4000 has 4679% better value for money than GRID K520.

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	1536 ×2
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	745 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	95.36 ×2
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	2.289 TFLOPS ×2
ROPs	64	32 ×2
TMUs	112	128 ×2

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 x16
Length	241 mm	267 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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB ×2
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit ×2
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	160.0 GB/s ×2
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.1.126
CUDA	6.1	3.0

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.

Quadro P4000 30.05
+229%

GRID K520 9.13

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 11578
+229%

GRID K520 3516

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro P4000 102
+155%

GRID K520 40

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

68
+278%

18−21

−278%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

11.99
+1568%

199.94

−1568%

Quadro P4000 has 1568% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 +233%	24−27 −233%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +263%	16−18 −263%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +244%	18−20 −244%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 +233%	24−27 −233%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +257%	30−33 −257%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +263%	16−18 −263%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +244%	18−20 −244%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +241%	27−30 −241%
Fortnite	130−140 +230%	40−45 −230%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +267%	30−33 −267%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +238%	24−27 −238%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +273%	30−33 −273%
Valorant	180−190 +231%	55−60 −231%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 +233%	24−27 −233%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +257%	30−33 −257%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +263%	16−18 −263%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	270−280 +238%	80−85 −238%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +244%	18−20 −244%
Dota 2	130−140 +274%	35−40 −274%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +241%	27−30 −241%
Fortnite	130−140 +230%	40−45 −230%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +267%	30−33 −267%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +238%	24−27 −238%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +233%	30−33 −233%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +256%	18−20 −256%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +273%	30−33 −273%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	77 +267%	21−24 −267%
Valorant	180−190 +231%	55−60 −231%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	100−110 +257%	30−33 −257%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +263%	16−18 −263%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +244%	18−20 −244%
Dota 2	130−140 +274%	35−40 −274%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +241%	27−30 −241%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +267%	30−33 −267%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +238%	24−27 −238%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +273%	30−33 −273%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +242%	12−14 −242%
Valorant	180−190 +231%	55−60 −231%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

130−140

+230%

40−45
−230%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	190−200 +255%	55−60 −255%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +231%	16−18 −231%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +250%	50−55 −250%
Valorant	220−230 +240%	65−70 −240%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +267%	21−24 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +263%	8−9 −263%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +267%	18−20 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +257%	21−24 −257%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +257%	14−16 −257%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +250%	14−16 −250%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

65−70
+283%

18−20

−283%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +244%	16−18 −244%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +243%	7−8 −243%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +250%	12−14 −250%
Valorant	160−170 +234%	50−55 −234%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +267%	12−14 −267%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Dota 2	85−90 +230%	27−30 −230%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +240%	10−11 −240%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +257%	14−16 −257%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +250%	8−9 −250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +256%	9−10 −256%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

30−35

+256%

9−10
−256%

This is how Quadro P4000 and GRID K520 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 278% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.05	9.13
Recency	6 February 2017	23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	225 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 229.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 125% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K520 in performance tests.