NVIDIA Quadro P4000 vs AMD Radeon R9 290X
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and AMD Radeon R9 290X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 P4000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 56% higher boost clock speed: 1480 MHz vs 947 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 250 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
- 6.1x more memory clock speed: 7604 MHz vs 1250 MHz
- Around 35% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 11545 vs 8526
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 795 vs 755
- Around 30% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 152.325 vs 117.322
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.365 vs 11.12
- Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 vs 628.757
- Around 75% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 vs 8729
- Around 75% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 vs 8729
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 6 February 2017 vs 24 October 2013 |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz vs 947 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 4 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 7604 MHz vs 1250 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11545 vs 8526 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 795 vs 755 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 vs 117.322 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 vs 11.12 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 vs 628.757 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 vs 8729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 vs 8729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3353 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290X
- Around 6% higher texture fill rate: 176.0 GTexel / s vs 165.8 GTexel / s
- Around 57% higher pipelines: 2816 vs 1792
- Around 6% better floating-point performance: 5,632 gflops vs 5,304 gflops
- Around 3% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 43410 vs 42289
- Around 55% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2460.464 vs 1590.392
- 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.942 vs 45.977
- Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7055 vs 3714
- Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7055 vs 3714
- 3.5x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3932 vs 1115
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 176.0 GTexel / s vs 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2816 vs 1792 |
| Floating-point performance | 5,632 gflops vs 5,304 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 43410 vs 42289 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2460.464 vs 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.942 vs 45.977 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7055 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7055 vs 3714 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3932 vs 1115 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290X
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | AMD Radeon R9 290X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11545 | 8526 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 795 | 755 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 | 43410 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 | 117.322 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1590.392 | 2460.464 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 | 11.12 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.977 | 120.942 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 | 628.757 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 | 8729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 7055 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 | 8729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 7055 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3353 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1115 | 3932 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | AMD Radeon R9 290X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 2.0 |
| Code name | GP104 | Hawaii |
| Launch date | 6 February 2017 | 24 October 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $549 |
| Place in performance rating | 287 | 284 |
| Price now | $799.99 | |
| Type | Workstation | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 17.17 | |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 947 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 5,304 gflops | 5,632 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1792 | 2816 |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 GTexel / s | 176.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Transistor count | 7,200 million | 6,200 million |
| Stream Processors | 2560 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 275 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB / s | 320 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7604 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Stereo | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
