Quadro K4000 vs Radeon R9 295X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 with Quadro K4000, including specs and performance data.
R9 295X2 outperforms K4000 by a whopping 221% 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 | 303 | 613 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.18 | 0.25 |
| Power efficiency | 3.21 | 6.24 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Vesuvius | GK106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 March 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $1,269 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 295X2 has 772% better value for money than Quadro K4000.
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 | 2816 ×2 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1018 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 2,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 500 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 179.2 ×2 | 51.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.244 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 24 |
| TMUs | 176 ×2 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 2.1 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 307 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 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 | 8 GB ×2 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit ×2 | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1404 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 640 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 | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| 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 | 20.88 | 6.50 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 1 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 500 Watt | 80 Watt |
R9 295X2 has a 221.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K4000, on the other hand, has 525% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 295X2 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.
