Quadro 4000 vs Radeon R9 Fury

Place in the ranking	222	708
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.16	0.19
Power efficiency	6.22	1.86
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Fiji	GF100
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	10 July 2015 (9 years ago)	2 November 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549	$1,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Fury has 4195% better value for money than Quadro 4000.

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	3584	256
Compute units	56	no data
Core clock speed	no data	475 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	8,900 million	3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	142 Watt
Texture fill rate	224.0	15.20
Floating-point processing power	7.168 TFLOPS	0.4864 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	224	32

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 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	1x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)	GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	+	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	702 MHz
Memory bandwidth	512 GB/s	89.86 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
Mantle	+	-
CUDA	-	2.0

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 Fury 24.85
+547%

Quadro 4000 3.84

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 Fury 9555
+547%

Quadro 4000 1476

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	89 +642%	12−14 −642%
1440p	97 +593%	14−16 −593%
4K	49 +600%	7−8 −600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.17 +1520%	99.92 −1520%
1440p	5.66 +1413%	85.64 −1413%
4K	11.20 +1429%	171.29 −1429%

R9 Fury has 1520% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 Fury has 1413% lower cost per frame in 1440p
R9 Fury has 1429% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +557%	7−8 −557%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
Elden Ring	80−85 +575%	12−14 −575%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +660%	10−11 −660%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +557%	7−8 −557%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +581%	16−18 −581%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +550%	10−11 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +575%	8−9 −575%
Valorant	100−105 +614%	14−16 −614%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +660%	10−11 −660%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +557%	7−8 −557%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
Dota 2	85−90 +608%	12−14 −608%
Elden Ring	80−85 +575%	12−14 −575%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +660%	10−11 −660%
Fortnite	120−130 +594%	18−20 −594%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +581%	16−18 −581%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 +608%	12−14 −608%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +550%	10−11 −550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +550%	24−27 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +575%	8−9 −575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	76 +660%	10−11 −660%
Valorant	100−105 +614%	14−16 −614%
World of Tanks	268 +570%	40−45 −570%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +660%	10−11 −660%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +557%	7−8 −557%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
Dota 2	130 +622%	18−20 −622%
Far Cry 5	101 +621%	14−16 −621%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +581%	16−18 −581%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +550%	24−27 −550%
Valorant	100−105 +614%	14−16 −614%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +600%	6−7 −600%
Elden Ring	40−45 +633%	6−7 −633%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +600%	6−7 −600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +548%	27−30 −548%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
World of Tanks	158 +558%	24−27 −558%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +620%	10−11 −620%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +560%	10−11 −560%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +613%	8−9 −613%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +620%	5−6 −620%
Valorant	65−70 +570%	10−11 −570%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Dota 2	47 +571%	7−8 −571%
Elden Ring	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Grand Theft Auto V	47 +571%	7−8 −571%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +660%	10−11 −660%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	47 +571%	7−8 −571%
World of Tanks	109 +581%	16−18 −581%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Dota 2	102 +629%	14−16 −629%
Far Cry 5	38 +660%	5−6 −660%
Fortnite	35 +600%	5−6 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +660%	5−6 −660%
Valorant	30−35 +700%	4−5 −700%

This is how R9 Fury and Quadro 4000 compete in popular games:

R9 Fury is 642% faster in 1080p
R9 Fury is 593% faster in 1440p
R9 Fury is 600% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	24.85	3.84
Recency	10 July 2015	2 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	142 Watt

R9 Fury has a 547.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 4000, on the other hand, has 93.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop card while Quadro 4000 is a workstation one.

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