Quadro M4000M vs Radeon R9 380

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

Quadro M4000M

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 100W instead of 220W, a 120W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 380 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 30.2 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $199 MSRP).

Radeon R9 380

2015

Why buy it

✅1.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 30.2 vs 0 G3D/$ ($199 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌120% higher power demand at 220W vs 100W.

Quadro M4000M

2015

Radeon R9 380

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 100W instead of 220W, a 120W reduction.

Why buy it

✅1.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 30.2 vs 0 G3D/$ ($199 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 380 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 30.2 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $199 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌120% higher power demand at 220W vs 100W.

Quick Answers

So, is Quadro M4000M better than Radeon R9 380?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Radeon R9 380 averages 1.0% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 6,148 vs 6,000 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Quadro M4000M is the overall package: you are getting no meaningful modern upscaling stack, plus much lower power draw (100W vs 220W).

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Quadro M4000M is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Quadro M4000M is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Quadro M4000M is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $199 MSRP, and you are getting lower estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 2.5% higher G3D Mark. Radeon R9 380 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is Radeon R9 380 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon R9 380 is 2015 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM, 6,000 in G3D Mark, and FSR upscaling. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Quadro M4000M Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 380 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
1080p
low	80 FPS	78 FPS
medium	68 FPS	67 FPS
high	55 FPS	54 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	36 FPS
1440p
low	70 FPS	69 FPS
medium	60 FPS	60 FPS
high	43 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	28 FPS	27 FPS
4K
low	25 FPS	25 FPS
medium	23 FPS	24 FPS
high	15 FPS	15 FPS
ultra	13 FPS	13 FPS

Open Quadro M4000M Open Radeon R9 380

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
1080p
low	199 FPS	128 FPS
medium	164 FPS	98 FPS
high	120 FPS	78 FPS
ultra	90 FPS	52 FPS
1440p
low	146 FPS	72 FPS
medium	118 FPS	52 FPS
high	92 FPS	38 FPS
ultra	69 FPS	27 FPS
4K
low	81 FPS	27 FPS
medium	66 FPS	19 FPS
high	54 FPS	15 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	11 FPS

Open Quadro M4000M Open Radeon R9 380

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
1080p
low	277 FPS	270 FPS
medium	221 FPS	216 FPS
high	184 FPS	180 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	135 FPS
1440p
low	207 FPS	202 FPS
medium	166 FPS	162 FPS
high	138 FPS	135 FPS
ultra	104 FPS	101 FPS
4K
low	138 FPS	135 FPS
medium	111 FPS	108 FPS
high	92 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	69 FPS	68 FPS

Open Quadro M4000M Open Radeon R9 380

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
1080p
low	147 FPS	139 FPS
medium	119 FPS	115 FPS
high	103 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	85 FPS	85 FPS
1440p
low	108 FPS	103 FPS
medium	89 FPS	85 FPS
high	78 FPS	74 FPS
ultra	64 FPS	59 FPS
4K
low	64 FPS	61 FPS
medium	49 FPS	48 FPS
high	39 FPS	38 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	27 FPS

Open Quadro M4000M Open Radeon R9 380

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro M4000M and Radeon R9 380

Quadro M4000M

The Quadro M4000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,148 points.

Radeon R9 380

The Radeon R9 380 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 970 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 220W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,000 points. Launch price was $199.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro M4000M scores 6,148 and the Radeon R9 380 reaches 6,000 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M4000M is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Radeon R9 380 uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1 (Quadro M4000M) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 380). Raw compute: 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000M) vs 3.476 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 380). Boost clocks: 1013 MHz vs 970 MHz.

Feature	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
G3D Mark Score	6,148+2%	6,000
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	GCN 3.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1,280	1792+40%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.496 TFLOPS	3.476 TFLOPS+39%
Boost Clock	1013 MHz+4%	970 MHz
ROPs	64+100%	32
TMUs	80	112+40%
L1 Cache	480 KB+7%	448 KB
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M4000M) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 380) — the Quadro M4000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit	256-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+300%	0.5 MB

🎬

Media & Encoding

Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX (Quadro M4000M) vs H.264,H.265 (Radeon R9 380).

Feature	Quadro M4000M	Radeon R9 380
Encoder	NVENC 5	—
Decoder	NVDEC 1	—
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX	H.264,H.265

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro M4000M draws 100W versus the Radeon R9 380's 220W — a 75% difference. The Quadro M4000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M4000M) vs 500W (Radeon R9 380). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 6-pin.