Quadro M4000M vs TITAN V

Place in the ranking	83	347
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.28	11.02
Architecture	Volta (2017−2020)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	GV100	GM204
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 December 2017 (7 years ago)	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$2,999	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	5120	1,280
Core clock speed	1200 MHz	975 MHz
Boost clock speed	1455 MHz	1013 MHz
Number of transistors	21,100 million	5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	465.6	78.00
Floating-point processing power	14.9 TFLOPS	2.496 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	64
TMUs	320	80
Tensor Cores	640	no data

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).

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None

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	12 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	3072 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	848 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	651.3 GB/s	160 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	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
3D Vision Pro	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	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	+
CUDA	7.0	5.2
DLSS	+	-

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.

TITAN V 42.77
+179%

M4000M 15.35

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.

TITAN V 17125
+179%

M4000M 6146

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

TITAN V 155834
+682%

M4000M 19918

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

TITAN V 150776
+613%

M4000M 21133

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	200−210 +167%	75 −167%
1440p	152 +204%	50−55 −204%
4K	82 +310%	20 −310%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	15.00	no data
1440p	19.73	no data
4K	36.57	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how TITAN V and M4000M compete in popular games:

TITAN V is 167% faster in 1080p
TITAN V is 204% faster in 1440p
TITAN V is 310% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	42.77	15.35
Recency	7 December 2017	18 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	100 Watt

TITAN V has a 178.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

M4000M, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The TITAN V is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that TITAN V is a desktop card while Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation one.