Quadro P4000 vs Radeon R9 290

Place in the ranking	268	193
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	7.96	17.68
Power efficiency	5.27	19.79
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Hawaii	GP104
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	5 November 2013 (11 years ago)	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$815

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P4000 has 122% better value for money than R9 290.

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	2560	1792
Core clock speed	947 MHz	1202 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1480 MHz
Number of transistors	6,200 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	151.5	165.8
Floating-point processing power	4.849 TFLOPS	5.304 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	160	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	275 mm	241 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1901 MHz
Memory bandwidth	320.0 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	4x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-
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_0)	12
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
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.

R9 290 20.79

Quadro P4000 29.80
+43.3%

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.

R9 290 8093

Quadro P4000 11602
+43.4%

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

45−50

−53.3%

69
+53.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

8.87

+33.2%

11.81
−33.2%

R9 290 has 33% lower cost per frame in 1080p

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%

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%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +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%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +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%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +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%
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%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +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	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +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	12−14 +0%	12−14 +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%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

This is how R9 290 and Quadro P4000 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 53% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.79	29.80
Recency	5 November 2013	6 February 2017
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	100 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 43.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 175% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Quadro P4000 is a workstation one.

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