Quadro P4000 vs Radeon RX Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 with Quadro P4000, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 64 outperforms P4000 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 135 | 198 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 21.59 | 18.55 |
| Power efficiency | 8.58 | 19.66 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 6 February 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $815 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX Vega 64 has 16% better value for money than Quadro P4000.
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 | 1247 MHz | 1202 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1546 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 395.8 | 165.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.66 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 | 279 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 1901 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 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 HDMI, 3x 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 and SDK 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.
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.
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 | 119
+75%
| 68
−75%
|
| 1440p | 82
+26.2%
| 65−70
−26.2%
|
| 4K | 54
+35%
| 40−45
−35%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.19
+186%
| 11.99
−186%
|
| 1440p | 6.09
+106%
| 12.54
−106%
|
| 4K | 9.24
+120%
| 20.38
−120%
|
- RX Vega 64 has 186% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 has 106% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 has 120% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+26.3%
|
80−85
−26.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+31%
|
55−60
−31%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+25.8%
|
60−65
−25.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+26.3%
|
80−85
−26.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 161
+50.5%
|
100−110
−50.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+31%
|
55−60
−31%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+25.8%
|
60−65
−25.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110
+19.6%
|
90−95
−19.6%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+15.2%
|
130−140
−15.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 167
+51.8%
|
110−120
−51.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+23.5%
|
80−85
−23.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+22.3%
|
110−120
−22.3%
|
| Valorant | 315
+73.1%
|
180−190
−73.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+26.3%
|
80−85
−26.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 146
+36.4%
|
100−110
−36.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+31%
|
55−60
−31%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2.6%
|
270−280
−2.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+25.8%
|
60−65
−25.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 150
+14.5%
|
130−140
−14.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+13%
|
90−95
−13%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+15.2%
|
130−140
−15.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 158
+43.6%
|
110−120
−43.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+23.5%
|
80−85
−23.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+17%
|
100−105
−17%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+14.1%
|
60−65
−14.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+22.3%
|
110−120
−22.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+71.4%
|
77
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 293
+61%
|
180−190
−61%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 139
+29.9%
|
100−110
−29.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+31%
|
55−60
−31%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+25.8%
|
60−65
−25.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 138
+5.3%
|
130−140
−5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+6.5%
|
90−95
−6.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 128
+16.4%
|
110−120
−16.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+23.5%
|
80−85
−23.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+22.3%
|
110−120
−22.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+87.8%
|
41
−87.8%
|
| Valorant | 140
−30%
|
180−190
+30%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+15.2%
|
130−140
−15.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+12%
|
24−27
−12%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+21%
|
190−200
−21%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+28.3%
|
50−55
−28.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+17.9%
|
35−40
−17.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 263
+19%
|
220−230
−19%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+16.9%
|
75−80
−16.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+31%
|
27−30
−31%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 81
+22.7%
|
65−70
−22.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+30.7%
|
75−80
−30.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+22%
|
50−55
−22%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+29.2%
|
45−50
−29.2%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+27.5%
|
65−70
−27.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+22.7%
|
21−24
−22.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+29.1%
|
55−60
−29.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+14.3%
|
40−45
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 205
+22.8%
|
160−170
−22.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+34.1%
|
40−45
−34.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+7.9%
|
85−90
−7.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+29.4%
|
30−35
−29.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+32%
|
50−55
−32%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+28.6%
|
27−30
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+34.4%
|
30−35
−34.4%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+31.3%
|
30−35
−31.3%
|
This is how RX Vega 64 and Quadro P4000 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 is 75% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 is 26% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 is 35% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 92% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 30% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 is ahead in 65 tests (97%)
- Quadro P4000 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.48 | 29.76 |
| Recency | 7 August 2017 | 6 February 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 100 Watt |
RX Vega 64 has a 22.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro P4000, on the other hand, has 195% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop card while Quadro P4000 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.
