Quadro P4000 vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

Place in the ranking	160	188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	17.58
Power efficiency	9.27	19.84
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GP104
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	27 June 2017 (7 years ago)	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$815

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	4096	1792
Core clock speed	1250 MHz	1202 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	1480 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	345.6	165.8
Floating-point processing power	11.06 TFLOPS	5.304 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	256	112

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 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	241 mm
Width	IGP	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	1901 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	192 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	No outputs	4x DisplayPort
Display Port	no data	1.4

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
3D Stereo	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.125	+
CUDA	-	6.1

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. 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.

Pro Vega 64 33.60
+11.3%

Quadro P4000 30.20

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.

Pro Vega 64 12920
+11.3%

Quadro P4000 11613

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.

Pro Vega 64 71252
+71%

Quadro P4000 41669

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Pro Vega 64 73720
+74.2%

Quadro P4000 42316

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

75−80
+8.7%

−8.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

11.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Elden Ring	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Dota 2	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Elden Ring	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Fortnite	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Dota 2	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Elden Ring	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
World of Tanks	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Fortnite	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

This is how Pro Vega 64 and Quadro P4000 compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 64 is 9% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.60	30.20
Recency	27 June 2017	6 February 2017
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	100 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro P4000, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4000 in performance tests.

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