AMD Radeon Vega 9 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Vega 9 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, API support, Memory, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Vega 9
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 5.3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 80 Watt
- Around 46% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9706 vs 6660
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 26 Oct 2017 vs 1 March 2013 |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 80 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 9706 vs 6660 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4000
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 768 vs 576
- Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 417 vs 409
- Around 71% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2723 vs 1591
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3798 vs 2591
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3798 vs 2591
- Around 97% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3651 vs 1856
- Around 97% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3651 vs 1856
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3321 vs 2482
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3321 vs 2482
Specifications (specs) | |
Pipelines | 768 vs 576 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 417 vs 409 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2723 vs 1591 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3798 vs 2591 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3798 vs 2591 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3651 vs 1856 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3651 vs 1856 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3321 vs 2482 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3321 vs 2482 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Vega 9
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4000
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon Vega 9 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G2D Mark | 409 | 417 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1591 | 2723 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 9706 | 6660 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2591 | 3798 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2591 | 3798 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1856 | 3651 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1856 | 3651 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2482 | 3321 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2482 | 3321 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.437 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 427.88 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.897 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.742 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 61.965 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 817 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Vega 9 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Vega | Kepler |
Code name | Vega Raven Ridge | GK106 |
Launch date | 26 Oct 2017 | 1 March 2013 |
Place in performance rating | 812 | 889 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $1,269 | |
Price now | $225.65 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 14.81 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 576 | 768 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
Transistor count | 4500 million | 2,540 million |
Core clock speed | 810 MHz | |
Floating-point performance | 1,244 gflops | |
Texture fill rate | 51.84 GTexel / s | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Shared memory | Yes | |
Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 134.8 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 192 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 5616 MHz | |
Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |
Length | 241 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin |