Quadro M4000 vs Quadro P2000
Quadro M4000
Popular choices:
Quadro P2000
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 M4000 is positioned at rank 159 and the Quadro P2000 is on rank 89, so the Quadro P2000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M4000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P2000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro P2000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M4000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+60%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P2000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro P2000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $190 (vs $350), it costs 46% less, resulting in a 92.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+92.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($350) | ✅More affordable ($190) |
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 M4000 and Quadro P2000
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.
Quadro P2000
The Quadro P2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 6 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1076 MHz to 1480 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,964 points. Launch price was $585.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M4000 scores 6,679 and the Quadro P2000 reaches 6,964 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M4000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Quadro P2000 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 1 (Quadro M4000) vs 1,024 (Quadro P2000). Raw compute: 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000) vs 3.031 TFLOPS (Quadro P2000). Boost clocks: 1013 MHz vs 1480 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,679 | 6,964+4% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 1,280+25% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.496 TFLOPS | 3.031 TFLOPS+21% |
| Boost Clock | 1013 MHz | 1480 MHz+46% |
| ROPs | 64+60% | 40 |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB+25% | 384 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+60% | 1.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M4000 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P2000 has 5 GB. The Quadro M4000 offers 60% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M4000) vs 1.25 MB (Quadro P2000) — the Quadro M4000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+60% | 5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+60% | 1.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Quadro M4000) vs 12.0 (Quadro P2000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M4000) vs NVENC 6.0 (Quadro P2000). Decoder: 1st Gen NVDEC vs PureVideo HD VP8. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (Quadro M4000) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P2000).
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) | NVENC 6.0 |
| Decoder | 1st Gen NVDEC | PureVideo HD VP8 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M4000 draws 100W versus the Quadro P2000's 75W — a 28.6% difference. The Quadro P2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M4000) vs 350W (Quadro P2000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 241mm vs 201mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 75W-25% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | 201mm |
| Height | 111mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 82°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 66.8 | 92.9+39% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M4000 launched at $791 MSRP and currently averages $350, while the Quadro P2000 launched at $425 and now averages $190. The Quadro P2000 costs 45.7% less ($160 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 19.1 (Quadro M4000) vs 36.7 (Quadro P2000) — the Quadro P2000 offers 92.1% better value. The Quadro P2000 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | Quadro P2000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $791 | $425-46% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $350 | $190-46% |
| Performance per Dollar | 19.1 | 36.7+92% |
| Codename | GM204 | GP106 |
| Release | August 18 2015 | February 6 2017 |
| Ranking | #392 | #346 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M4000 and Quadro P2000
