GRID P40-3Q vs Quadro M4000
GRID P40-3Q
Popular choices:
Quadro M4000
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 GRID P40-3Q is positioned at rank 341 and the Quadro M4000 is on rank 159, so the Quadro M4000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID P40-3Q
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M4000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M4000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P40-3Q.
| Insight | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M4000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro M4000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $350 (vs $5,699), it costs 94% less, resulting in a 1555.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1555.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($5,699) | ✅More affordable ($350) |
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 GRID P40-3Q and Quadro M4000
GRID P40-3Q
The GRID P40-3Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,570 points. Launch price was $469.
Quadro M4000
The Quadro M4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,679 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P40-3Q scores 6,570 and the Quadro M4000 reaches 6,679 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P40-3Q is built on Kepler while the Quadro M4000 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID P40-3Q) vs 1 (Quadro M4000). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID P40-3Q) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000).
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,570 | 6,679+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+20% | 1,280 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS | 2.496 TFLOPS+9% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 128+60% | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 480 KB+275% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GRID P40-3Q comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M4000 has 8 GB. The Quadro M4000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GRID P40-3Q) vs 2 MB (Quadro M4000) — the Quadro M4000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GRID P40-3Q) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro M4000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Tesla NVENC x24 (GRID P40-3Q) vs 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M4000). Decoder: Tesla NVDEC vs 1st Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (GRID P40-3Q) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (Quadro M4000).
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Tesla NVENC x24 | 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) |
| Decoder | Tesla NVDEC | 1st Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P40-3Q draws 225W versus the Quadro M4000's 100W — a 76.9% difference. The Quadro M4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P40-3Q) vs 350W (Quadro M4000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 82°C.
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 100W-56% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 241mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 82°C-4% |
| Perf/Watt | 29.2 | 66.8+129% |
Value Analysis
The GRID P40-3Q launched at $5699 MSRP and currently averages $5699, while the Quadro M4000 launched at $791 and now averages $350. The Quadro M4000 costs 93.9% less ($5349 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.2 (GRID P40-3Q) vs 19.1 (Quadro M4000) — the Quadro M4000 offers 1491.7% better value. The Quadro M4000 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID P40-3Q | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5699 | $791-86% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5699 | $350-94% |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.2 | 19.1+1492% |
| Codename | GK104 | GM204 |
| Release | June 28 2013 | August 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #628 | #392 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID P40-3Q and Quadro M4000
