Quadro 4000M vs Quadro P5200

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P5200 and Quadro 4000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro P5200
2018
16 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
31.20
+843%

P5200 outperforms 4000M by a whopping 843% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking185748
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.38
Power efficiency21.532.28
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGP104GF104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date21 February 2018 (6 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores2560336
Core clock speed1556 MHz475 MHz
Boost clock speed1746 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate279.426.60
Floating-point processing power8.94 TFLOPS0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs16056

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 sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth230.4 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.12.1

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.

Quadro P5200 31.20
+843%
Quadro 4000M 3.31

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 P5200 12063
+844%
Quadro 4000M 1278

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Quadro P5200 25100
+1100%
Quadro 4000M 2092

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Quadro P5200 65844
+514%
Quadro 4000M 10722

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 P5200 44354
+751%
Quadro 4000M 5212

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 HD120
+69%
71
−69%
4K48
+860%
5−6
−860%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.32
4Kno data89.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 80−85
+950%
8−9
−950%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+510%
10−11
−510%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+829%
7−8
−829%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 80−85
+950%
8−9
−950%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+900%
10−12
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+510%
10−11
−510%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+829%
7−8
−829%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+1271%
7−8
−1271%
Fortnite 130−140
+700%
16−18
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+667%
14−16
−667%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+1600%
5−6
−1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+729%
14−16
−729%
Valorant 180−190
+290%
45−50
−290%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 80−85
+950%
8−9
−950%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+900%
10−12
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+510%
10−11
−510%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+371%
55−60
−371%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+829%
7−8
−829%
Dota 2 130−140
+343%
30−33
−343%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+1271%
7−8
−1271%
Fortnite 130−140
+700%
16−18
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+667%
14−16
−667%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+1600%
5−6
−1600%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+1056%
9−10
−1056%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+729%
14−16
−729%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 118
+1080%
10−11
−1080%
Valorant 180−190
+290%
45−50
−290%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+900%
10−12
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+510%
10−11
−510%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+829%
7−8
−829%
Dota 2 130−140
+343%
30−33
−343%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+1271%
7−8
−1271%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+667%
14−16
−667%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+1600%
5−6
−1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+729%
14−16
−729%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65
+550%
10−11
−550%
Valorant 180−190
+290%
45−50
−290%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 130−140
+700%
16−18
−700%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+783%
21−24
−783%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+2700%
2−3
−2700%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+4000%
1−2
−4000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+661%
21−24
−661%
Valorant 220−230
+626%
30−35
−626%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+888%
8−9
−888%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+1280%
5−6
−1280%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+1014%
7−8
−1014%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+1200%
4−5
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+1117%
6−7
−1117%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+263%
16−18
−263%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Valorant 170−180
+994%
16−18
−994%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Dota 2 90−95
+911%
9−10
−911%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+1633%
3−4
−1633%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%

This is how Quadro P5200 and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P5200 is 69% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P5200 is 860% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5200 is 4000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Quadro P5200 surpassed Quadro 4000M in all 61 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.20 3.31
Recency 21 February 2018 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 40 nm

Quadro P5200 has a 842.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P5200
Quadro P5200
NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 100 votes

Rate Quadro P5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P5200 or Quadro 4000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.