Radeon RX 470 Mobile vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 with Radeon RX 470 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
P4000 outperforms 470 Mobile by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 239 | 360 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.87 | 3.67 |
| Power efficiency | 19.99 | 14.82 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Ellesmere |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 4 August 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $549.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro P4000 has 87% better value for money than RX 470 Mobile.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 926 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1074 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 137.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | 4.399 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip 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.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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 | 65
+85.7%
| 35−40
−85.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.54
+25.3%
| 15.71
−25.3%
|
- Quadro P4000 has 25% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+67%
|
90−95
−67%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+49.3%
|
70−75
−49.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+67%
|
90−95
−67%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+52.9%
|
65−70
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+44%
|
90−95
−44%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+58%
|
65−70
−58%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+69.2%
|
50−55
−69.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+79%
|
60−65
−79%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+37.9%
|
130−140
−37.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+49.3%
|
70−75
−49.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+67%
|
90−95
−67%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+26.2%
|
210−220
−26.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+28.7%
|
100−110
−28.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+52.9%
|
65−70
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+44%
|
90−95
−44%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+58%
|
65−70
−58%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+69.2%
|
50−55
−69.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+57.1%
|
60−65
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+80%
|
35−40
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+79%
|
60−65
−79%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+71.1%
|
45−50
−71.1%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+37.9%
|
130−140
−37.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+49.3%
|
70−75
−49.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+28.7%
|
100−110
−28.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+52.9%
|
65−70
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+58%
|
65−70
−58%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+79%
|
60−65
−79%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+37.9%
|
130−140
−37.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+44%
|
90−95
−44%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+87.9%
|
30−35
−87.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+60.7%
|
120−130
−60.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+92.9%
|
27−30
−92.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8.7%
|
160−170
−8.7%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+33.5%
|
160−170
−33.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+61.7%
|
45−50
−61.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+93.3%
|
14−16
−93.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+75.7%
|
35−40
−75.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+78%
|
40−45
−78%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+81.6%
|
35−40
−81.6%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+74.2%
|
30−35
−74.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+78.5%
|
90−95
−78.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+72%
|
24−27
−72%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+49.2%
|
55−60
−49.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+69%
|
27−30
−69%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and RX 470 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is 86% faster in 1080p
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 117% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 470 Mobile is 10% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 performs better in 63 tests (98%)
- RX 470 Mobile performs better in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.33 | 16.40 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 4 August 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 85 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has a 66.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 months.
RX 470 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 17.6% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 470 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
