NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 and Quadro 4000M are separated by over a decade of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects that gulf. Based on the recorded measurements, the RTX A400 wins the only shared test outright, which is Geekbench OpenCL. It scores 22,844 versus 5,211 for the Quadro 4000M, a 338.4% advantage. That is not a close contest; it is a generational sweep.

However, the use-case split is not just about who wins; it is about what each card can even attempt. The RTX A400 has a full suite of benchmark results across DirectX 10, 11, 12, 9, 2D, 3D, and compute workloads. The Quadro 4000M has only one recorded benchmark result, Geekbench OpenCL. This means the database contains no DirectX or Vulkan scores for the Quadro 4000M, no 3D mark, and no compute score beyond OpenCL. For any modern workstation task involving DirectX 12, the RTX A400 is the only one of the two with measurable data, scoring 27 in Passmark DirectX 12. The Quadro 4000M simply has no recorded result there.

From a workload perspective, the RTX A400 is the card for contemporary graphics APIs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro 4000M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). If a professional application leverages ray tracing or variable rate shading, the RTX A400 is the only candidate, as it has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. The Quadro 4000M has neither. For Vulkan, the RTX A400 has recorded support and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,237; the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed at all.

The Quadro 4000M, being from the Fermi era, is effectively a legacy part for older OpenGL 4.6 workloads that do not require modern compute. But even there, the data shows it is outclassed in raw throughput. The RTX A400 delivers 42.29 GTexel/s texture rate and 28.19 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the Quadro 4000M delivers 26.60 GTexel/s and 6.650 GPixel/s. For any texture-heavy or fill-rate-bound task, the RTX A400 is ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different manufacturing and design eras. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip, built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The die size is 200 mm², and the transistor count is 8,700 million, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip, built on Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. Its die is 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors, yielding a much lower density of 5.9 million per mm².

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. The wider bus on the Quadro is a historical curiosity, but the RTX A400 still has higher bandwidth. The RTX A400 also runs memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 4000M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources diverge sharply. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores; the Quadro has none. FP32 performance: the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS, the Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS. The RTX A400 also has FP16 at 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1); the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Other architectural differences: the RTX A400 is a 50 W single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The Quadro 4000M is a 100 W MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs and an MXM-B (3.0) interface. The RTX A400 is still in production, released in 2024; the Quadro 4000M is end-of-life, released in 2011.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark where both have recorded scores is Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX A400 scores 22,844, the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. That is a delta of 338.4% in favor of the RTX A400. To put that in context, the RTX A400 is 4.38 times faster than the Quadro 4000M in this single compute test.

For all other benchmarks, the database only has results for the RTX A400. The RTX A400 scores 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan, 5,983 in Passmark G3D, 2,557 in Passmark GPU Compute, 899 in Passmark G2D, and 87 in Passmark DX9. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded scores for any of those tests. The RTX A400 also has scores of 32 in DX10, 37 in DX11, and 27 in DX12. The Quadro 4000M has zero data points there.

The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, which places it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, 0.5% delta), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117, -0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, 1% delta). The Quadro 4000M has an average score of 5,211, at the 30th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236, -0.5% delta), AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161, 1% delta), NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5,154, 1.1% delta), and NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284, -1.4% delta).

The data shows the RTX A400 sits in a performance tier roughly equivalent to a low-end GTX MX230, but the Quadro 4000M is even lower, around the level of a GeForce 940M. The RTX A400 is 16.6% faster than the Quadro 4000M in average score (6,078 versus 5,211), but that understates the head-to-head OpenCL result, where the RTX A400 is 338.4% faster.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the clear choice for any modern workload. It wins the only shared benchmark with a 338.4% margin, has support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, and provides 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Quadro 4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), has no Vulkan support, and delivers 638.4 GFLOPS. For professional tasks requiring RT cores or tensor cores, the RTX A400 is the only option of the two, as the Quadro 4000M has none.

For legacy applications that were built for Fermi-era GPUs, the Quadro 4000M still has a role. It is an MXM module, meaning it was designed for portable workstations, and it has a higher TMU count (56 versus 24) and ROP count (32 versus 16) than the RTX A400. But those advantages in texture and pixel processing are theoretical, as the RTX A400 still outputs higher pixel and texture rates (28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s and 26.60 GTexel/s). The Quadro 4000M also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, but the RTX A400 has higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s.

The RTX A400 is also a much more efficient part. It has a TDP of 50 W versus 100 W for the Quadro 4000M. The RTX A400 is production-active, with a 2024 release date, while the Quadro 4000M is end-of-life, released in 2011. For anyone choosing between these two specifically, the RTX A400 is the only sensible purchase, assuming the system can accept a PCIe 4.0 x8 card. If the system requires an MXM module, the Quadro 4000M is the only one that fits, but it is obsolete.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the common benchmark?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. The RTX A400 leads by 338.4%.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M support Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists no Vulkan support for the Quadro 4000M. The RTX A400 supports Vulkan 1.4 and scores 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What are the memory sizes and types?

A: The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX A400 has 768 shading units. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The RTX A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores; the Quadro 4000M has none.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W. The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W. The RTX A400 has a suggested power supply of 250 W; the Quadro 4000M has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A400 has 96.00 GB/s, the Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s.