Quadro 4000 vs Titan X Pascal

Place in performance ranking	144	668
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	14.85	0.52
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GP102	GF100
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	25 July 2016 (7 years ago)	2 November 2010 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,199	$1,199
Current price	$312 (0.3x MSRP)	$295 (0.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Titan X Pascal has 2756% better value for money than Quadro 4000.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	3584	256
Core clock speed	1418 MHz	475 MHz
Boost clock speed	1531 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	11,800 million	3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	142 Watt
Texture fill rate	342.9	15.20
Floating-point performance	10,974 gflops	486.4 gflops

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 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	241 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 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	GDDR5X	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	10000 MHz	2808 MHz
Memory bandwidth	480.4 GB/s	89.86 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	no data
G-SYNC support	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	+	2.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Titan X Pascal 33.73
+781%

Quadro 4000 3.83

Titan X Pascal outperforms Quadro 4000 by 781% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Titan X Pascal 13026
+781%

Quadro 4000 1479

Titan X Pascal outperforms Quadro 4000 by 781% in Passmark.

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	124 +786%	14−16 −786%
1440p	73 +813%	8−9 −813%
4K	59 +883%	6−7 −883%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+888%

8−9
−888%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	104 +940%	10−11 −940%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	95 +850%	10−11 −850%
Battlefield 5	174 +867%	18−20 −867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	108 +800%	12−14 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 +875%	8−9 −875%
Far Cry 5	121 +908%	12−14 −908%
Far Cry New Dawn	138 +886%	14−16 −886%
Forza Horizon 4	127 +807%	14−16 −807%
Hitman 3	104 +940%	10−11 −940%
Horizon Zero Dawn	275 +817%	30−33 −817%
Metro Exodus	143 +794%	16−18 −794%
Red Dead Redemption 2	125 +793%	14−16 −793%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	251 +830%	27−30 −830%
Watch Dogs: Legion	104 +940%	10−11 −940%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	87 +867%	9−10 −867%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	85 +844%	9−10 −844%
Battlefield 5	165 +817%	18−20 −817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	98 +880%	10−11 −880%
Cyberpunk 2077	69 +886%	7−8 −886%
Far Cry 5	92 +820%	10−11 −820%
Far Cry New Dawn	108 +800%	12−14 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	225 +838%	24−27 −838%
Hitman 3	84 +833%	9−10 −833%
Horizon Zero Dawn	275 +817%	30−33 −817%
Metro Exodus	142 +788%	16−18 −788%
Red Dead Redemption 2	120 +900%	12−14 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	194 +824%	21−24 −824%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	184 +922%	18−20 −922%
Watch Dogs: Legion	216 +800%	24−27 −800%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	67 +857%	7−8 −857%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	63 +800%	7−8 −800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	75 +838%	8−9 −838%
Cyberpunk 2077	59 +883%	6−7 −883%
Far Cry 5	67 +857%	7−8 −857%
Forza Horizon 4	112 +833%	12−14 −833%
Horizon Zero Dawn	150 +838%	16−18 −838%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	167 +828%	18−20 −828%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95 +850%	10−11 −850%
Watch Dogs: Legion	64 +814%	7−8 −814%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

118

+883%

12−14
−883%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +814%	7−8 −814%
Far Cry New Dawn	113 +842%	12−14 −842%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	51 +920%	5−6 −920%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	94 +840%	10−11 −840%
Cyberpunk 2077	38 +850%	4−5 −850%
Far Cry 5	101 +910%	10−11 −910%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +886%	7−8 −886%
Hitman 3	66 +843%	7−8 −843%
Horizon Zero Dawn	118 +883%	12−14 −883%
Metro Exodus	101 +910%	10−11 −910%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	122 +917%	12−14 −917%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +820%	5−6 −820%
Watch Dogs: Legion	46 +820%	5−6 −820%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

92
+820%

10−11

−820%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	63 +800%	7−8 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	48 +860%	5−6 −860%
Hitman 3	39 +875%	4−5 −875%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +925%	4−5 −925%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	42 +950%	4−5 −950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	68 +871%	7−8 −871%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	38 +850%	4−5 −850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	32 +967%	3−4 −967%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 +1033%	3−4 −1033%
Cyberpunk 2077	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Far Cry 5	33 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	73 +813%	8−9 −813%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70 +900%	7−8 −900%
Metro Exodus	56 +833%	6−7 −833%
Watch Dogs: Legion	26 +1200%	2−3 −1200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+840%

5−6
−840%

This is how Titan X Pascal and Quadro 4000 compete in popular games:

Titan X Pascal is 786% faster in 1080p
Titan X Pascal is 813% faster in 1440p
Titan X Pascal is 883% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.73	3.83
Recency	25 July 2016	2 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	142 Watt