Radeon R9 280X vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	188	352
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.27	5.57
Power efficiency	19.68	4.15
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GP104	Tahiti
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P4000 has 210% better value for money than R9 280X.

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	2048
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	128.0
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	4.096 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	112	128

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	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	275 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 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	3 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	288 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+
DisplayPort support	-	+
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.

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
HD3D	-	+
LiquidVR	-	+
TressFX	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
UVD	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+
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	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
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 30.17
+99.1%

R9 280X 15.15

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 11623
+99.1%

R9 280X 5837

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	72 +12.5%	64 −12.5%
4K	60−65 +93.5%	31 −93.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.32	4.67
4K	13.58	9.65

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

50−55
+113%

24−27

−113%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +91.2%	30−35 −91.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 +108%	24−27 −108%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +100%	45−50 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 +107%	30−33 −107%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +113%	24−27 −113%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +94.3%	35−40 −94.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +87.8%	40−45 −87.8%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +68.4%	95−100 −68.4%
Hitman 3	60−65 +117%	27−30 −117%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +72.7%	75−80 −72.7%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +100%	50−55 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +85.4%	40−45 −85.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +114%	45−50 −114%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +46.2%	75−80 −46.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +91.2%	30−35 −91.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 +108%	24−27 −108%
Battlefield 5	95−100 +100%	45−50 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 +107%	30−33 −107%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +113%	24−27 −113%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +94.3%	35−40 −94.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	75−80 +87.8%	40−45 −87.8%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +68.4%	95−100 −68.4%
Hitman 3	60−65 +117%	27−30 −117%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +72.7%	75−80 −72.7%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +100%	50−55 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +85.4%	40−45 −85.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +114%	45−50 −114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 −71.9%	110 +71.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +46.2%	75−80 −46.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +91.2%	30−35 −91.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 +108%	24−27 −108%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65 +107%	30−33 −107%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +113%	24−27 −113%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +94.3%	35−40 −94.3%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +68.4%	95−100 −68.4%
Hitman 3	60−65 +117%	27−30 −117%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +72.7%	75−80 −72.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +114%	45−50 −114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +105%	20 −105%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +46.2%	75−80 −46.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

75−80
+85.4%

40−45

−85.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +96.6%	27−30 −96.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +100%	21−24 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +113%	14−16 −113%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +158%	12−14 −158%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +119%	16−18 −119%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +106%	16−18 −106%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +120%	75−80 −120%
Hitman 3	35−40 +106%	18−20 −106%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +103%	30−35 −103%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 +156%	27−30 −156%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +150%	16−18 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	160−170 +74.2%	90−95 −74.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55
+104%

24−27

−104%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +100%	14−16 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Hitman 3	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Horizon Zero Dawn	150−160 +98.7%	75−80 −98.7%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +140%	14−16 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +105%	20−22 −105%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +160%	14−16 −160%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27
+85.7%

14−16

−85.7%

This is how Quadro P4000 and R9 280X compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 13% faster in 1080p
Quadro P4000 is 94% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 300% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 280X is 72% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is ahead in 71 test (99%)
R9 280X is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	30.17	15.15
Recency	6 February 2017	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	3 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	250 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 99.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280X in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 280X is a desktop one.

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