Quadro M4000M vs Quadro P5000

Place in the ranking	166	340
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.70	no data
Power efficiency	12.58	11.02
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	GP104	GM204
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$2,499	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	2048	1,280
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	975 MHz
Boost clock speed	1733 MHz	1013 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	277.3	78.00
Floating-point processing power	8.873 TFLOPS	2.496 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	160	80

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	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	None

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	16 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	160 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	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Display Port	1.4	1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	+
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	+
nView Display Management	+	+
Optimus	+	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	12
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
CUDA	6.1	5.2

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 P5000 32.83
+106%

M4000M 15.97

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 P5000 12623
+106%

M4000M 6142

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 P5000 52822
+165%

M4000M 19918

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P5000 56332
+167%

M4000M 21133

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	98 +30.7%	75 −30.7%
4K	40 +100%	20 −100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	25.50	no data
4K	62.48	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +132%	27−30 −132%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +123%	30−35 −123%
Elden Ring	110−120 +129%	45−50 −129%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +80.8%	50−55 −80.8%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +132%	27−30 −132%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +123%	30−35 −123%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +135%	65−70 −135%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +86.4%	40−45 −86.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +76.3%	35−40 −76.3%
Valorant	130−140 +105%	60−65 −105%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +80.8%	50−55 −80.8%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +132%	27−30 −132%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +123%	30−35 −123%
Dota 2	100−110 +87.7%	55−60 −87.7%
Elden Ring	110−120 +129%	45−50 −129%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +56.1%	55−60 −56.1%
Fortnite	150−160 +72.7%	85−90 −72.7%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +135%	65−70 −135%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +87.7%	55−60 −87.7%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +86.4%	40−45 −86.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +63.7%	110−120 −63.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +76.3%	35−40 −76.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +129%	45−50 −129%
Valorant	130−140 +105%	60−65 −105%
World of Tanks	270−280 +37.1%	200−210 −37.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +80.8%	50−55 −80.8%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +132%	27−30 −132%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +123%	30−35 −123%
Dota 2	100−110 +87.7%	55−60 −87.7%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +56.1%	55−60 −56.1%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +135%	65−70 −135%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +63.7%	110−120 −63.7%
Valorant	130−140 +105%	60−65 −105%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 +146%	24−27 −146%
Elden Ring	60−65 +152%	24−27 −152%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +146%	24−27 −146%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +18.2%	140−150 −18.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
World of Tanks	210−220 +90.1%	110−120 −90.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +100%	30−35 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +158%	12−14 −158%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +158%	40−45 −158%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +133%	35−40 −133%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +109%	35−40 −109%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +152%	21−24 −152%
Valorant	95−100 +140%	40−45 −140%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +167%	12−14 −167%
Dota 2	60−65 +118%	27−30 −118%
Elden Ring	27−30 +164%	10−12 −164%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +126%	27−30 −126%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +145%	10−12 −145%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +119%	45−50 −119%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +126%	27−30 −126%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +147%	14−16 −147%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +167%	12−14 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Dota 2	60−65 +118%	27−30 −118%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +130%	20−22 −130%
Fortnite	40−45 +144%	18−20 −144%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +130%	21−24 −130%
Valorant	45−50 +172%	18−20 −172%

This is how Quadro P5000 and M4000M compete in popular games:

Quadro P5000 is 31% faster in 1080p
Quadro P5000 is 100% 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 P5000 is 225% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P5000 surpassed M4000M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.83	15.97
Recency	1 October 2016	18 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm

Quadro P5000 has a 105.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation card while Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation one.

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