Quadro P4000 vs Radeon R9 295X2

Place in the ranking	253	190
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.41	17.87
Power efficiency	3.08	19.84
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Vesuvius	GP104
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	29 April 2014 (10 years ago)	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,499	$815

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P4000 has 641% better value for money than R9 295X2.

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	1792
Core clock speed	no data	1202 MHz
Boost clock speed	1018 MHz	1480 MHz
Number of transistors	6,200 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	179.2	165.8
Floating-point processing power	5.733 TFLOPS	5.304 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	176	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).

Bus support	PCIe 2.1 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 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	8 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1901 MHz
Memory bandwidth	640 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	1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort	4x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-
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.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
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	DirectX® 12	12
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	+
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 295X2 22.31

Quadro P4000 30.21
+35.4%

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 295X2 8573

Quadro P4000 11610
+35.4%

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

50−55

−38%

69
+38%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

29.98

−154%

11.81
+154%

Quadro P4000 has 154% 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	100−110 +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%
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	100−110 +0%	100−110 +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%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +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	27−30 +0%	27−30 +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	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%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

This is how R9 295X2 and Quadro P4000 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 38% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.31	30.21
Recency	29 April 2014	6 February 2017
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	100 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 35.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 295X2 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 295X2 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.