GeForce GTX 960 vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	192	345
Place by popularity	not in top-100	53
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.45	8.83
Power efficiency	19.79	9.10
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	GP104	GM206
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	22 January 2015 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P4000 has 98% better value for money than GTX 960.

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	1202 MHz	1127 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1178 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	75.39
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	2.413 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).

Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	241 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	no data	400 Watt
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	7.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	112 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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
Multi monitor support	no data	4 displays
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Display Port	1.4	no data
G-SYNC support	-	+
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	-	+
GeForce ShadowPlay	-	+
GPU Boost	no data	2.0
GameWorks	-	+
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	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	+
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. 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 29.03
+90.2%

GTX 960 15.26

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 11603
+90.3%

GTX 960 6097

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 41343
+122%

GTX 960 18636

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P4000 41722
+104%

GTX 960 20495

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P4000 38590
+117%

GTX 960 17784

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
+113%

GTX 960 48

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 +11.3%	62 −11.3%
4K	55−60 +83.3%	30 −83.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.81 −268%	3.21 +268%
4K	14.82 −123%	6.63 +123%

GTX 960 has 268% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 960 has 123% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +100%	30−35 −100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +72.5%	50−55 −72.5%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +100%	30−35 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +112%	65−70 −112%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +88.1%	40−45 −88.1%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +79.1%	40−45 −79.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +65.8%	35−40 −65.8%
Valorant	120−130 +87.5%	60−65 −87.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +72.5%	50−55 −72.5%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +100%	30−35 −100%
Dota 2	100−110 +206%	33 −206%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +49.1%	55−60 −49.1%
Fortnite	140−150 +62.5%	85−90 −62.5%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +112%	65−70 −112%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +88.1%	40−45 −88.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +104%	49 −104%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +79.1%	40−45 −79.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +55.8%	110−120 −55.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +65.8%	35−40 −65.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +106%	49 −106%
Valorant	120−130 +87.5%	60−65 −87.5%
World of Tanks	270−280 +35.8%	200−210 −35.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +72.5%	50−55 −72.5%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +100%	30−35 −100%
Dota 2	100−110 +77.2%	55−60 −77.2%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +49.1%	55−60 −49.1%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +112%	65−70 −112%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +88.1%	40−45 −88.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +55.8%	110−120 −55.8%
Valorant	120−130 +87.5%	60−65 −87.5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +121%	24−27 −121%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +121%	24−27 −121%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +19.9%	140−150 −19.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +100%	14−16 −100%
World of Tanks	190−200 +78.2%	110−120 −78.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +84.4%	30−35 −84.4%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +85.7%	14−16 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +125%	12−14 −125%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +138%	35−40 −138%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +113%	35−40 −113%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +96%	24−27 −96%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +94.3%	35−40 −94.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +129%	21−24 −129%
Valorant	85−90 +115%	40−45 −115%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +23.5%	16−18 −23.5%
Dota 2	55−60 +104%	27−30 −104%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +104%	27−30 −104%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +100%	45−50 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +90%	10−11 −90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +104%	27−30 −104%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +120%	14−16 −120%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +23.5%	16−18 −23.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Dota 2	55−60 +104%	27−30 −104%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +110%	20−22 −110%
Fortnite	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +109%	21−24 −109%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +125%	12−14 −125%
Valorant	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%

This is how Quadro P4000 and GTX 960 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 11% faster in 1080p
Quadro P4000 is 83% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 206% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P4000 surpassed GTX 960 in all 64 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	29.03	15.26
Recency	6 February 2017	22 January 2015
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	120 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 90.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 960 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.