0
Check Prices $69.00
0
Check Prices $1199.00
Select any two GPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Radeon R7 240 2GB Quadro 4000
Cyberpunk 2077 786% 584%
Hitman 3 1053% 789%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 711% 525%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 684% 505%
FIFA 21 347% 245%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1147% 862%
Far Cry 6 1182% 889%
Genshin Impact 786% 584%
Battlefield 6 1053% 789%
Resident Evil 8 786% 584%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia Quadro 4000 are noticeably better than the AMD Radeon R7 240 2GB.

The R7 240 has a 255 MHz higher core clock speed than the Quadro 4000, but the Quadro 4000 has 12 more Texture Mapping Units than the R7 240. As a result, the Quadro 4000 exhibits a 0.6 GTexel/s better Texture Fill Rate than the R7 240. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.

The R7 240 has a 255 MHz higher core clock speed than the Quadro 4000, but the Quadro 4000 has 24 more Render Output Units than the R7 240. As a result, the Quadro 4000 exhibits a 9.4 GPixel/s better Pixel Fill Rate than the R7 240. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.

The R7 240 was released over a year more recently than the Quadro 4000, and so the R7 240 is likely to have better driver support, meaning it will be more optimized for running the latest games when compared to the Quadro 4000.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB and the Quadro 4000 have the same amount of video memory, but are likely to provide slightly different experiences when displaying game textures at high resolutions.

The Quadro 4000 has 61.1 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the R7 240, which means that the memory performance of the Quadro 4000 is much better than the R7 240.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB has 320 Shader Processing Units and the Quadro 4000 has 256. However, the actual shader performance of the R7 240 is 212 and the actual shader performance of the Quadro 4000 is 243. The Quadro 4000 having 31 better shader performance and an altogether better performance when taking into account other relevant data means that the Quadro 4000 delivers a significantly smoother and more efficient experience when processing graphical data than the R7 240.

The R7 240 transistor size technology is 12 nm (nanometers) smaller than the Quadro 4000. This means that the R7 240 is expected to run slightly cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the Quadro 4000.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB requires 30 Watts to run and the Quadro 4000 requires 142 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the R7 240 and a PSU with at least 500 Watts for the Quadro 4000. The Quadro 4000 requires 112 Watts more than the R7 240 to run. The difference is significant enough that the Quadro 4000 may have an adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the R7 240.

Game FPS Benchmarks On Ultra

GPU Architecture

Core Speed730 MHzvs475 MHz
Boost Clock780 MHzvs-
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 Oland PROFermi GF100-100-KD
OC Potential Good vs Good
Driver Support Great vs -
Release Date08 Oct 2013vs02 Nov 2010
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved
Comparison

Resolution Performance

1366x768
6.4
green tick vs -
1600x900
4.9
green tick vs -
1920x1080
3.1
green tick vs -
2560x1440
2.3
green tick vs -
3840x2160
1.5
green tick vs -

GPU Memory

Memory2048 MBvs2048 MB
Memory Speed900 MHzvs702 MHz
Memory Bus128 Bitvs256 Bit
Memory TypeDDR3vsGDDR5
Memory Bandwidth28.8GB/secvs89.9GB/sec
L2 Cache 512 KB green tick vs 384 KB
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%
Comparison

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units320vs256
Actual Shader Performance10%vs12%
Technology28nmvs40nm
Texture Mapping Units20vs32
Texture Rate14.6 GTexel/svs15.2 GTexel/s
Render Output Units8vs32
Pixel Rate5.8 GPixel/svs15.2 GPixel/s
Comparison

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)4096x2160vs2560x1600
VGA Connections1vs0
DVI Connections1vs2
HDMI Connections1vs0
DisplayPort Connections-vs-
Comparison

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power30 Wattsvs142 Watts
Recommended PSU400 Watts & 18 Ampsvs500 Watts & 33 Amps

GPU Features

DirectX12.0vs11
Shader Model5.0vs5.0
Open GL4.4vs4.1
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUnono
SLI/Crossfirenovsno
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Comparison

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended ProcessorIntel Core i3-4130 3.4GHzvsIntel Core i5-760 2.8GHz
Recommended RAM4 GBvs8 GB
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution1366x768vs1920x1080

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewNote: This Graphics Card has 2 variants: one with DDR3 and another with GDDR5. This is the DDR3 Version.

Radeon R7 240 2GB offers a core codenamed Oland PRO and thus features 320 Shader Processing Units, 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs, on a 128-bit bus width of standard DDR3. While the central unit runs at 730MHz and goes up to 780MHz, in Turbo Mode, the memory clock operates at 900MHz.
With a rated board TDP of 30W, it requires no extra power connectors.

Compared to Radeon R7 250, its performance is significantly lower (over 25% slower), especially at higher resolutions due to the limited memory bandwidth. Still, the TDP is relatively low and so this card may be used on low end systems and offer a reasonable upgrade, when compared to integrated graphics.
Quadro 4000 is a middle-class professional card based on the 40nm, Fermi architecture.

It's based on the Fermi GF100-100-KD GPU and thus offers 352 Shader Processing Units, 44 TMUs and 40 ROPs, on a 256-bit memory interface of fast GDDR5. The central unit runs at 450MHz and the memory clock operates at up to 702MHz. It has a L2 Cache of 384KB and a rated board TDP of 142 Watts.

Despite exhibiting similarities to GeForce GTX 460, due to being under-clocked and because Quadro 4000's drivers are only certified for professional applications only, its gaming performance is up to 10% slower than GeForce GTS 450.
Recommended CPU
Possible GPU Upgrades
-
-
GPU Variants
-