GeForce 210 vs Quadro P4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4000 with GeForce 210, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P4000
2017
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
29.96
+9565%

P4000 outperforms 210 by a whopping 9565% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1961329
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.81no data
Power efficiency19.690.69
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGP104GT218
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date6 February 2017 (8 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$815 $29.49

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores179216
Core clock speed1202 MHz589 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt30.5 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate165.84.160
Floating-point processing power5.304 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs644
TMUs1128

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length241 mm168 mm
Heightno data2.731" (6.9 cm)
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount8 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1901 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/s8.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortDVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Display Port1.4no data
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

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.

DirectX1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.53.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA6.1+

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.

Quadro P4000 29.96
+9565%
GeForce 210 0.31

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 11584
+9474%
GeForce 210 121

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 HD680−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.99no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 80−85 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 80−85 0−1
Battlefield 5 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 0−1
Far Cry 5 90−95 0−1
Fortnite 130−140
+13100%
1−2
−13100%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+11000%
1−2
−11000%
Forza Horizon 5 80−85 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+11100%
1−2
−11100%
Valorant 180−190
+18100%
1−2
−18100%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 80−85 0−1
Battlefield 5 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+13400%
2−3
−13400%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 0−1
Dota 2 130−140
+13000%
1−2
−13000%
Far Cry 5 90−95 0−1
Fortnite 130−140
+13100%
1−2
−13100%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+11000%
1−2
−11000%
Forza Horizon 5 80−85 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 100−105
+9900%
1−2
−9900%
Metro Exodus 60−65 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+11100%
1−2
−11100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77 0−1
Valorant 180−190
+18100%
1−2
−18100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 0−1
Dota 2 130−140
+13000%
1−2
−13000%
Far Cry 5 90−95 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+11000%
1−2
−11000%
Forza Horizon 5 80−85 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+11100%
1−2
−11100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41 0−1
Valorant 180−190
+18100%
1−2
−18100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+13100%
1−2
−13100%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+9650%
2−3
−9650%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17400%
1−2
−17400%
Valorant 220−230
+10950%
2−3
−10950%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 0−1
Far Cry 5 65−70 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 50−55 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 65−70 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60 0−1
Metro Exodus 24−27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 0−1
Valorant 160−170
+16700%
1−2
−16700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Dota 2 85−90 0−1
Far Cry 5 30−35 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.96 0.31
Recency 6 February 2017 12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 16 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 30 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 9564.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 210, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 210 is a desktop 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
Quadro P4000
NVIDIA GeForce 210
GeForce 210

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.


4 312 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 3727 votes

Rate GeForce 210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P4000 or GeForce 210, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.