OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA Quadro K4000 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£390VRAM:3 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):80 W

NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 10 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA Quadro K4000
4.6/10

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

3.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
5.8

Value for money

Value for money
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.9

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 97%
3.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

3.7

Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (10)
4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 97%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-quadro-k4000
  • nvidia-quadro-k4000
  • nvidia-quadro-k4000
  • nvidia-quadro-k4000
  • nvidia-quadro-k4000
  • nvidia-quadro-k4000
nvidia-quadro-k4000
nvidia-quadro-k4000
nvidia-quadro-k4000
nvidia-quadro-k4000
nvidia-quadro-k4000
nvidia-quadro-k4000
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA Quadro K4000

Based on 4 · 8

Praised for multi-monitor support, low power use and quiet cooling, but weak for gaming and struggles with newer games.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA Quadro K4000

Based on 17 owners sharing their experience in online comments

47%positive12%mixed41%negative

Owners value its professional application performance and modest gaming ability, though weak gaming and reliability problems limit its appeal.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say it is weak for gaming, and one buyer found it performed badly in games even in a new PC.4
  • Owners report games crashing with post-processing enabled, and one card showed visual artifacts that a user claims were fixed by cleaning it.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA Quadro K4000

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

2.9

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
3.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

5.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,120 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,120 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
2,720 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 2,720 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 96.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,113 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,113 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 96.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.24 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.24 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 96.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
3 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 3 GB of VRAM, which is less than 93.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
134 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 134 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 92% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,616 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,616 MHz, which is slower than that of 95.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
2
This graphics card supports PCIe 2, which is older than on 98.4% of graphics cards and equal to 1.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
3840x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 3840x2160, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
17.28 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 17.28 Gbps, which is slower than on 57.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
80 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 80 W, which is lower than that of 90% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
80 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 80 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
87 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 87 W, which is lower than that of 91.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
80 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
?
Length
241 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 241 mm long, which is shorter than 74.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
710 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 710 g, which is lighter than 77.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

NVIDIA Quadro K4000 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 62.8% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (80 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    80 W vs 215 W
  • 16x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (384 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    384 MB vs 24 MB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 60.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (87 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    87 W vs 220 W
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:24 vs 1:64).
    1:24 vs 1:64
  • 16x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (384 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    384 MB vs 24 MB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 62.8% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (80 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    80 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 60.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (87 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    87 W vs 220 W
  • 7.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    28 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 63.6% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (80 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    80 W vs 220 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 67.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (810 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    810 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 9 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (3 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    3 GB vs 12 GB
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 57.8% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (810 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    810 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (10)
    4 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 6 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 28.1% worse value for money
    NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.79 vs 7.4).
    5.79 vs 7.41
  • 67.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (810 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    810 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 57.8% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (810 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    810 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 86.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (51.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    51.84 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 92% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (13 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    12.96 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 40 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (24 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    24 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 94.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.24 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 10 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2013 vs 2023).
    March 2013
    2013 vs 2023
  • 88% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (2,720 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    2,720 points vs 22,638 points
  • 92.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,120 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,120 points vs 14,779 points
  • 90.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,113 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,113 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 50% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.24 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 9 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (3 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    3 GB vs 12 GB
  • 70.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (134 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    134 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 70.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,616 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,616 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 19.8% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,404 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,404 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (2 vs 4).
    2 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 88.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,540 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,540 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.1a).
    1.4 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (3840x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    3840x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 10 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (105 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    105 °C vs 95 °C
  • 21 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (58 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    58 °C vs 37 °C
  • 28 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    28 dB vs 0 dB
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
27/03/2025
Hands-on benchmark · game tests on an older quad-core system
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is recommended as a spare card for older, lighter games, though the aging CPU limits performance.
9.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
22/07/2024
Hands-on benchmark · game tests and display options
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is recommended as a spare card, especially for lighter games and multi-monitor setups.
5.0
ProYamYamPC
≈ estimated
28/09/2023
Hands-on test · gaming performance on an old workstation card
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 handles older and light games, but it's not worth buying when better used cards are available.
5.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
25/08/2023
Benchmark test · 10 games on an older workstation card
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is fine for esports and older games, but modern AAA titles are a stretch, and better budget cards exist.
7.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
27/09/2022
Gameplay test · 10 games on a 2012 card
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is recommended as a cheap starter card, though it struggles with modern games.
7.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
25/08/2022
Hands-on review · gaming tests on an old workstation card
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is not worth buying for gaming, but it's a good fit for display output and editing.
3.0
Miyconst
≈ estimated
21/07/2021
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and multi-monitor setup
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is nearly useless for gaming and multi-monitor use, though it may hold you over briefly.
6.0
Nev's Tech Bits
≈ estimated
17/01/2022
Quick test · Cyberpunk, GTA V and Fortnite
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is not great, but it's cheap and will get you by with older games in a pinch.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
17/10/2013
Lab test · Video editing workstation
Verdict
The Quadro K4000 is a low-power, single-slot workstation card that speeds up Premiere Pro and Photoshop, but it is not built for gaming.
9.5
renderosity.com
≈ estimated
06/05/2013
Hands-on test · Quadro vs GeForce
Verdict
The Quadro K4000 is a strong workstation card with performance close to the older Quadro 5000, but GeForce is the better choice for gaming.
9.0
postperspective.com
≈ estimated
19/03/2014
Hands-on test · Premiere and Media Composer
Verdict
The Quadro K4000 suits Premiere, Media Composer and After Effects editors, and adds Nvidia's OptiX ray tracing, which Adobe does not support on AMD cards.
9.5
renderosity.com
≈ estimated
Not Dated
Benchmark review · Workstation card
Verdict
The Quadro K4000 suits Maya users who want near K5000 speed in most scenes, but it slows in very dense scenes and is not ideal for gaming.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA Quadro K4000

  • Certified drivers ensure stability and prevent crashes in professional software like Adobe CC, Maya, and AutoCAD
  • Significantly lower power consumption (80W TDP) compared to previous Fermi-based models
  • Single-slot design allows for efficient space usage in workstations
  • Quiet cooling system even under heavy professional workloads
  • Capable of driving up to four simultaneous displays using DisplayPort 1.2
  • Excellent reliability for long rendering sessions and 24/7 operation
  • Support for 10-bit color depth, offering superior visual quality for photo and video editing

What customers don't like about NVIDIA Quadro K4000

  • Poor gaming performance compared to much cheaper consumer-grade GeForce cards
  • Higher initial cost relative to its raw compute power due to professional workstation certification
  • Struggles with modern, high-complexity 4K real-time playback or dense 3D simulations
  • Lacks support for modern DirectX 12 feature levels, limited to DirectX 11
  • Single-slot blower cooler can be difficult to dismantle and requires frequent cleaning to avoid overheating
  • Requires an additional 6-pin power connector despite its relatively low power draw

Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is a single-slot workstation graphics card launched in 2013, built on the 28nm Kepler architecture (GK106) with 768 CUDA cores and 3GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit interface providing 134 GB/s bandwidth. Operating at a base clock of 810 MHz with an 80W TDP, it was specifically designed for professional 3D modeling and CAD applications, offering certified stability and support for up to four simultaneous displays via DisplayPort 1.2 and DVI-I DL. Its primary advantages include high power efficiency, a slim form factor that fits into compact workstations, and reliable ISV-certified drivers for industries like manufacturing and media. However, its main drawbacks are its aging performance compared to modern standards, lack of native DirectX 12 feature level support, and poor value for gaming due to its specialized, non-consumer driver focus.

Compare NVIDIA Quadro K4000 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found