Quadro P4000 Mobile vs TITAN V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared TITAN V with Quadro P4000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
TITAN V outperforms P4000 Mobile by a whopping 121% 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 | 111 | 326 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.10 | 3.15 |
| Power efficiency | 12.59 | 14.26 |
| Architecture | Volta (2017−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GV100 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2017 (8 years ago) | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $819.61 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
TITAN V has 30% better value for money than P4000 Mobile.
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 | 5120 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | 1228 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 21,100 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 465.6 | 137.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.9 TFLOPS | 4.398 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 320 | 112 |
| Tensor Cores | 640 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 7.5 MB | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4.5 MB | 2 MB |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 3072 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 848 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 651.3 GB/s | 192 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| 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 support
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 | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.0 | 6.1 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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:
| 1440p | 152
+134%
| 65−70
−134%
|
| 4K | 82
+134%
| 35−40
−134%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1440p | 19.73
−56.5%
| 12.61
+56.5%
|
| 4K | 36.57
−56.2%
| 23.42
+56.2%
|
- P4000 Mobile has 56% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- P4000 Mobile has 56% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.95 | 18.56 |
| Recency | 7 December 2017 | 11 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
TITAN V has a 120.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.
P4000 Mobile, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.
The TITAN V is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that TITAN V is a desktop graphics card while Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
