Radeon RX 560 Mobile vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 with Radeon RX 560 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
P4000 outperforms RX 560 Mobile by a whopping 169% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 196 | 429 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.64 | 5.67 |
| Power efficiency | 19.66 | 13.97 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Baffin |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro P4000 has 229% better value for money than RX 560 Mobile.
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 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 58.97 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | 1.887 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 56 |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 96 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 | 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 compatibility
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 | 68
+58.1%
| 43
−58.1%
|
| 4K | 95−100
+164%
| 36
−164%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.99
−415%
| 2.33
+415%
|
| 4K | 8.58
−209%
| 2.78
+209%
|
- RX 560 Mobile has 415% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile has 209% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+205%
|
18−20
−205%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+133%
|
45−50
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+205%
|
18−20
−205%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+163%
|
35
−163%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+51.7%
|
87
−51.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+144%
|
45−50
−144%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+129%
|
49
−129%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+87.6%
|
95−100
−87.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+133%
|
45−50
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+205%
|
18−20
−205%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+74.2%
|
150−160
−74.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+77%
|
70−75
−77%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+207%
|
30
−207%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+110%
|
63
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+144%
|
45−50
−144%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−105
+150%
|
40−45
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+205%
|
21−24
−205%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+149%
|
45
−149%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+120%
|
35
−120%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+87.6%
|
95−100
−87.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+133%
|
45−50
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+205%
|
18−20
−205%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+77%
|
70−75
−77%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+241%
|
27
−241%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+144%
|
45−50
−144%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+762%
|
13
−762%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+105%
|
20
−105%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+87.6%
|
95−100
−87.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+164%
|
50
−164%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+144%
|
80−85
−144%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+253%
|
14−16
−253%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+218%
|
55−60
−218%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+90.5%
|
110−120
−90.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+200%
|
21−24
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+200%
|
24−27
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+163%
|
18−20
−163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+162%
|
21−24
−162%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+204%
|
55−60
−204%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+238%
|
12−14
−238%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+209%
|
10−12
−209%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
−12.5%
|
36
+12.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and RX 560 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is 58% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4000 is 164% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 762% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 13% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is ahead in 65 tests (97%)
- RX 560 Mobile is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.05 | 11.19 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 5 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has a 168.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 560 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 81.8% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 560 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation card while Radeon RX 560 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.
