NVIDIA Quadro K4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 33% higher core clock speed: 810 MHz vs 610 MHz
- Around 6% higher texture fill rate: 51.84 GTexel / s vs 48.8 GTexel / s
- 3.2x more pipelines: 768 vs 240
- 2x better floating-point performance: 1,244 gflops vs 622.1 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 2.4x lower typical power consumption: 80 Watt vs 189 Watt
- 3.5x more memory clock speed: 5616 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2721 vs 1210
- 5.3x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 424 vs 80
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 March 2013 vs 11 November 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz vs 610 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 GTexel / s vs 48.8 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 vs 240 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,244 gflops vs 622.1 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt vs 189 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 5616 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2721 vs 1210 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 424 vs 80 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3321 vs 3319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3321 vs 3319 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
- Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
- 2.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18229 vs 6674
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 3 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18229 vs 6674 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2721 | 1210 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 424 | 80 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6674 | 18229 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.462 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 427.88 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.899 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.742 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 61.965 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3798 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3651 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3321 | 3319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3798 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3651 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3321 | 3319 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 817 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GK106 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 1 March 2013 | 11 November 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,269 | $3,499 |
| Place in performance rating | 866 | 1240 |
| Price now | $225.65 | $178.89 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 14.81 | 8.02 |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 610 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,244 gflops | 622.1 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 240 |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 GTexel / s | 48.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt | 189 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,540 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 134.8 GB / s | 102.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5616 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K4000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro K4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce Go 7800
NVIDIAQuadro K4000 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 2300
NVIDIAQuadro K4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 445M
NVIDIAQuadro K4000 vs
AMDRadeon R5 235X OEM
NVIDIAQuadro K4000 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
NVIDIAQuadro K4000 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M380
