NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro P400 represent two distinct eras of professional graphics, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a clear, albeit narrow, overall winner: the older Quadro 4000 edges out the P400 in the only shared test, but the specifics of that victory reveal a fascinating generational trade-off. The Quadro 4000 posts an average benchmark score of 4979, placing it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P400 trails with an average of 4684, landing in the 27th percentile. The verdict is not about raw dominance but about workload suitability, as the data suggests these cards were built for entirely different professional priorities.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the available data, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the better choice for general-purpose OpenCL compute tasks, as it leads the Quadro P400 by 17.2% in the geekbench_opencl benchmark. This advantage, however, comes with significant caveats: the Quadro 4000 consumes 142 W and requires a 300 W power supply, while the Quadro P400 sips just 30 W and needs only a 200 W PSU. The data does not specify a launch MSRP for the Quadro P400, but the Quadro 4000 was introduced at a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, making its performance lead a costly one in both power and initial investment.

The Quadro P400, despite losing the OpenCL test, is the only card with a geekbench_vulkan score, hitting 5119, which is notably higher than the Quadro 4000’s OpenCL result. This indicates the P400 is the superior option for modern, API-diverse workloads that leverage Vulkan. For users prioritizing energy efficiency, physical footprint, and modern API support, the P400 is clearly the better fit. The data suggests two distinct buyer profiles: one seeking legacy compute throughput at higher power cost, and another seeking a low-power, modern-featured solution for contemporary software stacks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial, spanning multiple generations of NVIDIA design. The Quadro 4000 is built on the GF100 chip using the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process from TSMC, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. In contrast, the Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip with the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process from Samsung, fitting 3,300 million transistors into just 132 mm². This represents a dramatic density shift, from 5.9M transistors per mm² on the Fermi chip to 25.0M per mm² on the Pascal chip.

The core configurations differ significantly despite identical shading unit counts. Both cards feature 256 shading units, but the Quadro 4000 pairs them with 32 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 32 render output units (ROPs), while the Quadro P400 halves both to 16 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational progress: the Quadro 4000 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), whereas the P400 runs at a 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost clock, with memory at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The P400 also adds a modest FP16 capability of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), which the Quadro 4000 lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 486.4 GFLOPS, and its texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s, with a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s. These figures, combined with its 256-bit memory bus delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, make it a formidable tool for memory-intensive OpenCL workloads. The benchmark data confirms this, as it outscores the P400 by 17.2% in geekbench_opencl. The Quadro 4000 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, though it lacks Vulkan support entirely.

The Quadro P400 wins in modern API support and efficiency. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its geekbench_vulkan score of 5119 demonstrates a strong capability in that newer API. Its FP32 output of 641.0 GFLOPS is actually 31.8% higher than the Quadro 4000’s, despite losing the OpenCL benchmark, suggesting that its lower memory bandwidth (32.06 GB/s on a 64-bit bus) is the bottleneck in that particular test. The P400’s pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s and texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s are both superior to the Quadro 4000’s, indicating better geometry and fill-rate performance per clock.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has an average benchmark score of 4979, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 averages 4684. The Quadro 4000 also sits in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, two points higher than the P400’s 27th percentile.

Q: Does the Quadro P400 support any API that the Quadro 4000 does not?

A: Yes, the Quadro P400 supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 4000 has no listed Vulkan support. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, though the Quadro 4000’s DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_0 feature level.

Q: How do the power requirements differ between these two cards?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 300 W power supply with a 1x 6-pin connector, while the Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W, needs only a 200 W power supply, and requires no power connectors.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro 4000 offers 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, compared to the Quadro P400’s 32.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. This gives the Quadro 4000 roughly 2.8 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The Quadro P400 has a higher FP32 performance at 641.0 GFLOPS, compared to the Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS, despite the Quadro 4000 winning the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Are there any differences in display outputs?

A: Yes, the Quadro 4000 features 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, while the Quadro P400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the geekbench_opencl test, where the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 against the Quadro P400’s 4249. This represents a 17.2% delta in favor of the Quadro 4000, a substantial margin that underscores the Fermi card’s compute advantage. This win is particularly notable because the P400 has superior FP32 throughput (641.0 GFLOPS vs. 486.4 GFLOPS) and higher pixel/texture rates, yet still loses by a wide margin. The data implies the Quadro 4000’s 256-bit memory bus and 89.86 GB/s bandwidth are the deciding factors in memory-bound OpenCL workloads, effectively neutralizing the P400’s architectural advantages.

The Quadro 4000’s victory is further contextualized by its nearest rivals. It sits just 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (avg score 4970) and 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931), while being 0.4% below the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018). This clustering around the 4900-5000 range indicates the Quadro 4000 is performing at a level consistent with mainstream mid-range GPUs from various eras. The Quadro P400, conversely, sits 0.6% above both the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (both at 4657), and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628), but 0.9% below the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727).

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification except for memory size and shading unit count. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256 shading units, but this is where the similarities end. The Quadro 4000 uses a 256-bit memory bus versus the P400’s 64-bit bus, resulting in 89.86 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The process node shrinks from 40 nm (TSMC) to 14 nm (Samsung), and the die size drops from 529 mm² to 132 mm². Transistor counts are similar (3,100M vs. 3,300M), but density jumps from 5.9M/mm² to 25.0M/mm².

The TMU and ROP counts halve from 32/32 on the Quadro 4000 to 16/16 on the P400. The P400 has explicit base (1228 MHz) and boost (1252 MHz) clocks, while the Quadro 4000 lists none. Memory clocks differ at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps) for the Quadro 4000 versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps) for the P400. Power consumption drops dramatically from 142 W to 30 W, and the power connector requirement disappears entirely. The bus interface advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x16. The P400 is physically shorter at 150 mm versus the Quadro 4000’s 241 mm, and narrower at 69 mm versus 111 mm, though the Quadro 4000 has a listed width of 20 mm while the P400’s width is not specified. API support improves from DirectX 12 (11_0) to DirectX 12 (12_1), and the P400 adds Vulkan 1.4 support where the Quadro 4000 has none. The release dates are separated by over six years, with the Quadro 4000 launching in November 2010 and the P400 in February 2017.