
FirePro V9800 vs Quadro K4000

FirePro V9800
Popular choices:

Quadro K4000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro V9800 is positioned at rank 368 and the Quadro K4000 is on rank 283, so the Quadro K4000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V9800
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K4000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro V9800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.3% higher G3D Mark score and 33.3% more VRAM (4 GB vs 3 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K4000.
| Insight | FirePro V9800 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K4000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K4000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $100 (vs $250), it costs 60% less, resulting in a 149.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro V9800 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+149.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($250) | ✅More affordable ($100) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro V9800 and Quadro K4000

FirePro V9800
The FirePro V9800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 24 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,727 points.

Quadro K4000
The Quadro K4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 810 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,719 points. Launch price was $1,269.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro V9800 scores 2,727 and the Quadro K4000 reaches 2,719 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro V9800 is built on TeraScale 3 while the Quadro K4000 uses Kepler, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (FirePro V9800) vs 768 (Quadro K4000). Raw compute: 1.856 TFLOPS (FirePro V9800) vs 1.244 TFLOPS (Quadro K4000).
| Feature | FirePro V9800 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,727 | 2,719 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+67% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.856 TFLOPS+49% | 1.244 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+33% | 24 |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+400% | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+33% | 384 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro V9800 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro V9800 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB. The FirePro V9800 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (FirePro V9800) vs 384 KB (Quadro K4000) — the FirePro V9800 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro V9800 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+33% | 3 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+33% | 384 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro V9800 draws 150W versus the Quadro K4000's 80W — a 60.9% difference. The Quadro K4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro V9800) vs 350W (Quadro K4000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | FirePro V9800 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 80W-47% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 18.2 | 34.0+87% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro V9800 launched at $3499 MSRP and currently averages $250, while the Quadro K4000 launched at $1269 and now averages $100. The Quadro K4000 costs 60% less ($150 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 10.9 (FirePro V9800) vs 27.2 (Quadro K4000) — the Quadro K4000 offers 149.5% better value. The Quadro K4000 is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2011).
| Feature | FirePro V9800 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3499 | $1269-64% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $250 | $100-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 10.9 | 27.2+150% |
| Codename | Cayman | GK106 |
| Release | May 24 2011 | March 1 2013 |
| Ranking | #656 | #613 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















