Quadro 4000M vs FirePro M5950
Quadro 4000M
Popular choices:
FirePro M5950
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 Quadro 4000M is positioned at rank 91 and the FirePro M5950 is on rank 181, so the Quadro 4000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 4000M
Performance Per Dollar FirePro M5950
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro M5950 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro 4000M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro 4000M | FirePro M5950 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the FirePro M5950 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 Quadro 4000M and FirePro M5950
Quadro 4000M
The Quadro 4000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 22 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 475 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,287 points. Launch price was $449.
FirePro M5950
The FirePro M5950 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 4 2011. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,314 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro 4000M scores 1,287 and the FirePro M5950 reaches 1,314 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 4000M is built on Fermi while the FirePro M5950 uses TeraScale 2, both on a 40 nm process. Shader units: 336 (Quadro 4000M) vs 480 (FirePro M5950). Raw compute: 0.6384 TFLOPS (Quadro 4000M) vs 0.696 TFLOPS (FirePro M5950).
| Feature | Quadro 4000M | FirePro M5950 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,287 | 1,314+2% |
| Architecture | Fermi | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 336 | 480+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6384 TFLOPS | 0.696 TFLOPS+9% |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 56+133% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB+833% | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro 4000M | FirePro M5950 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro 4000M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro M5950 has 1 GB. The Quadro 4000M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Quadro 4000M) vs 256 KB (FirePro M5950) — the Quadro 4000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro 4000M | FirePro M5950 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+100% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro 4000M draws 100W versus the FirePro M5950's 35W — a 96.3% difference. The FirePro M5950 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 4000M) vs 350W (FirePro M5950). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro 4000M | FirePro M5950 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 35W-65% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 12.9 | 37.5+191% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro 4000M and FirePro M5950
