Quadro K4000 vs ATI Radeon HD 3850 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3850 X2 with Quadro K4000, including specs and performance data.
K4000 outperforms HD 3850 X2 by a whopping 229% 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 | 941 | 617 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | 0.25 |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 6.23 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | RV670 | GK106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 April 2008 (17 years ago) | 1 March 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $1,269 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro K4000 has 213% better value for money than ATI HD 3850 X2.
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 | 320 ×2 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 669 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.70 ×2 | 51.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4282 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.244 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 24 |
| TMUs | 16 ×2 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 384 KB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB ×2 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 828 MHz | 1404 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 52.99 GB/s ×2 | 134.8 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.97 | 6.49 |
| Recency | 4 April 2008 | 1 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 80 Watt |
Quadro K4000 has a 229.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 75% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3850 X2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 3850 X2 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K4000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
