
GRID P40-4Q vs RTX A400

GRID P40-4Q
Popular choices:

RTX A400
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 P40-4Q is positioned at rank 294 and the RTX A400 is on rank 26, so the RTX A400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID P40-4Q
Performance Per Dollar RTX A400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX A400 is significantly newer (2024 vs 2013). The RTX A400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GRID P40-4Q lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RTX A400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P40-4Q.
| Insight | GRID P40-4Q | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The RTX A400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $135 versus $150 for the GRID P40-4Q, it costs 10% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 12.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID P40-4Q | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+12.2%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($135) |
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 P40-4Q and RTX A400

GRID P40-4Q
The GRID P40-4Q 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: 5,926 points. Launch price was $469.

RTX A400
The RTX A400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1762 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,983 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P40-4Q scores 5,926 and the RTX A400 reaches 5,983 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P40-4Q is built on Kepler while the RTX A400 uses Ampere, both on 28 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID P40-4Q) vs 768 (RTX A400). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID P40-4Q) vs 2.706 TFLOPS (RTX A400).
| Feature | GRID P40-4Q | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,926 | 5,983 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Ampere |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+100% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS+18% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128+433% | 24 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P40-4Q | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GRID P40-4Q | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P40-4Q draws 225W versus the RTX A400's 50W — a 127.3% difference. The RTX A400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P40-4Q) vs 350W (RTX A400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID P40-4Q | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 50W-78% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 26.3 | 119.7+355% |
Value Analysis
The GRID P40-4Q launched at $3000 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the RTX A400 launched at $135 and now averages $135. The RTX A400 costs 10% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 39.5 (GRID P40-4Q) vs 44.3 (RTX A400) — the RTX A400 offers 12.2% better value. The RTX A400 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID P40-4Q | RTX A400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3000 | $135-96% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $135-10% |
| Performance per Dollar | 39.5 | 44.3+12% |
| Codename | GK104 | GA107 |
| Release | June 28 2013 | April 16 2024 |
| Ranking | #628 | #397 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












