GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Quadro K4200 Graphics cards Comparison
Find out if it is worth upgrading your current GPU setup by comparing GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro K4200. Here you can take a closer look at graphics cards specs, such as core clock speed, memory type and size, display connectors, etc. The price, overall benchmark and gaming performances are usually defining factors when it comes to choosing between GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro K4200. Make sure that the graphics card has compatible dimensions and will properly fit in your new or current computer case. Also these graphics cards may have different system power recommendations, so take that into consideration and upgrade your PSU if necessary.
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
Check Price
Quadro K4200
Check Price
Main Specs
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro K4200 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 3. |
PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
|
Check Price |
Check Price |
- Quadro K4200 has 8% more power consumption, than GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER.
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is connected by PCIe 3.0 x16, and Quadro K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro K4200 have maximum RAM of 4 GB.
- Both cards are used in Desktops.
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is build with Turing architecture, and Quadro K4200 — with Kepler.
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is manufactured by 12 nm process technology, and Quadro K4200 — by 28 nm process technology.
- Quadro K4200 is 12 mm longer, than GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER.
- Memory clock speed of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is 6600 MHz higher, than Quadro K4200.
Game benchmarks
| Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks | ||
| high / 1080p | 50−55 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 30−35 | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 7−8 |
| 4K / 2160p | 14−16 | 5−6 |
| low / 720p | 75−80 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 60−65 | 27−30 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is 131% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| high / 1080p | 80−85 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 70−75 | 30−33 |
| QHD / 1440p | 55−60 | 14−16 |
| 4K / 2160p | 27−30 | 9−10 |
| low / 720p | 130−140 | 70−75 |
| medium / 1080p | 90−95 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Battlefield 5 is 136% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 0−1 |
The average gaming FPS of Quadro K4200 in Call of Duty: Warzone is 10% more, than GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER. |
||
| low / 768p | 250−260 | 230−240 |
| medium / 768p | 230−240 | 200−210 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 120−130 |
| QHD / 1440p | 150−160 | 100−105 |
| 4K / 2160p | 100−110 | 55−60 |
| high / 768p | 220−230 | 170−180 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 25% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| low / 768p | 70−75 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 50−55 |
| medium / 1080p | 50−55 | 55−60 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Cyberpunk 2077 is 3% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| medium / 768p | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| ultra / 1080p | 110−120 | 80−85 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Dota 2 is 10% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| high / 1080p | 65−70 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 60−65 | 24−27 |
| QHD / 1440p | 40−45 | 20−22 |
| 4K / 2160p | 21−24 | 8−9 |
| low / 720p | 100−110 | 55−60 |
| medium / 1080p | 65−70 | 27−30 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Far Cry 5 is 117% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| high / 1080p | 90−95 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 70−75 | 27−30 |
| QHD / 1440p | 45−50 | 16−18 |
| 4K / 2160p | 21−24 | − |
| low / 720p | 220−230 | 130−140 |
| medium / 1080p | 140−150 | 75−80 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Fortnite is 96% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 65−70 | 27−30 |
| QHD / 1440p | 50−55 | 16−18 |
| 4K / 2160p | 30−35 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 130−140 | 70−75 |
| medium / 1080p | 90−95 | 40−45 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Forza Horizon 4 is 120% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| low / 768p | 160−170 | 100−110 |
| medium / 768p | 150−160 | 95−100 |
| high / 1080p | 95−100 | 40−45 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 18−20 |
| QHD / 1440p | 40−45 | 8−9 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Grand Theft Auto V is 87% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| high / 1080p | 35−40 | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 30−35 | 10−12 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 10−12 |
| 4K / 2160p | 14−16 | 3−4 |
| low / 720p | 95−100 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 50−55 | 18−20 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Metro Exodus is 152% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 110−120 |
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro K4200 have the same average FPS in Minecraft. | ||
| high / 1080p | 75−80 | − |
| ultra / 1080p | 55−60 | 14−16 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | − |
| low / 720p | 120−130 | 75−80 |
| medium / 1080p | 85−90 | 18−20 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS is 143% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| high / 1080p | 35−40 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 10−12 |
| QHD / 1440p | 16−18 | 2−3 |
| 4K / 2160p | 10−12 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 95−100 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 55−60 | 21−24 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 156% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| low / 768p | 190−200 | 80−85 |
| medium / 768p | 120−130 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 70−75 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 14−16 |
| 4K / 2160p | 24−27 | 9−10 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 148% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | − | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 65−70 | 40−45 |
| high / 768p | − | 55−60 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in World of Tanks is 43% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
Full Specs
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro K4200 | |
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
| Code name | TU116 | GK104 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 November 2019 | 22 July 2014 |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 771 MHz | |
| Boost Clock | 1725 MHz | 784 MHz |
| Transistor count | 6,600 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 138. 0 |
87.81 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,107 gflops | |
| Length | 229 mm | 241 mm |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 5400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |
| G-SYNC support | + | |
| VR Ready | + | |
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1. 1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 3.0 |
| G-SYNC | + | |
| Multi Monitor | + | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 119 Mh/s | |
|
Check Price |
Check Price |
Similar compares
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 980
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 980
- Quadro K4200 vs GeForce GTX 980
- Quadro K4200 vs GeForce GTX 980
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 680MX
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs GRID M60 1Q
- Quadro K4200 vs GeForce GTX 680MX
- Quadro K4200 vs GRID M60 1Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs Quadro K4200 Graphics cards Comparison
When comparing GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Quadro K4200, we look primarily at benchmarks and game tests.
But it is not only about the numbers. Often you can find third-party models with higher clock speeds, better cooling, or a customizable RGB lighting. Not all of them will have all the features you need. Another thing to consider is the port selection. Most graphics cards have at least one DisplayPort and HDMI interface, but some monitors require DVI. Before you buy, check the TDP of the graphics card — this characteristic will help you estimate the consumption of the graphics card. You may even have to upgrade your PSU to meet its requirements. An important factor when choosing between GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Quadro K4200 is the price. Does the additional cost justify the performance hit? Our comparison should help you make the right decision.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Quadro K4200
Check Price
Main Specs
| GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro K4200 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Interface | PCIe 3. 0 x16 |
PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
|
Check Price |
- Quadro K4200 has 44% more power consumption, than GeForce GTX 1650 Ti.
- GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is connected by PCIe 3.0 x16, and Quadro K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.
- Both cards are used in Desktops.
- GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is build with Turing architecture, and Quadro K4200 — with Kepler.
- Core clock speed of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is 759 MHz higher, than Quadro K4200.
- GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by 12 nm process technology, and Quadro K4200 — by 28 nm process technology.
- Quadro K4200 is 12 mm longer, than GeForce GTX 1650 Ti.
- Memory clock speed of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is 2600 MHz higher, than Quadro K4200.
Game benchmarks
| Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks | ||
| high / 1080p | 35−40 | 21−24 |
| ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 12−14 |
| QHD / 1440p | 20−22 | 7−8 |
| 4K / 2160p | 10−12 | 5−6 |
| low / 720p | 65−70 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 27−30 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is 84% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| high / 1080p | 60−65 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 50−55 | 30−33 |
| QHD / 1440p | 35−40 | 14−16 |
| 4K / 2160p | 20−22 | 9−10 |
| low / 720p | 110−120 | 70−75 |
| medium / 1080p | 65−70 | 35−40 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Battlefield 5 is 78% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| low / 768p | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Quadro K4200 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. |
||
| low / 768p | 250−260 | 230−240 |
| medium / 768p | 220−230 | 200−210 |
| ultra / 1080p | 190−200 | 120−130 |
| QHD / 1440p | 120−130 | 100−105 |
| 4K / 2160p | 75−80 | 55−60 |
| high / 768p | 210−220 | 170−180 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 21% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| low / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 50−55 |
| medium / 1080p | 55−60 | 55−60 |
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Quadro K4200 have the same average FPS in Cyberpunk 2077. |
||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| medium / 768p | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| ultra / 1080p | 100−110 | 80−85 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Dota 2 is 7% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| high / 1080p | 50−55 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 24−27 |
| QHD / 1440p | 30−35 | 20−22 |
| 4K / 2160p | 16−18 | 8−9 |
| low / 720p | 85−90 | 55−60 |
| medium / 1080p | 50−55 | 27−30 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Far Cry 5 is 71% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| high / 1080p | 65−70 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 50−55 | 27−30 |
| QHD / 1440p | 30−35 | 16−18 |
| 4K / 2160p | 27−30 | − |
| low / 720p | 190−200 | 130−140 |
| medium / 1080p | 120−130 | 75−80 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Fortnite is 59% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| high / 1080p | 65−70 | 35−40 |
| ultra / 1080p | 50−55 | 27−30 |
| QHD / 1440p | 35−40 | 16−18 |
| 4K / 2160p | 24−27 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 110−120 | 70−75 |
| medium / 1080p | 70−75 | 40−45 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Forza Horizon 4 is 74% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| low / 768p | 140−150 | 100−110 |
| medium / 768p | 130−140 | 95−100 |
| high / 1080p | 75−80 | 40−45 |
| ultra / 1080p | 35−40 | 18−20 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 8−9 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Grand Theft Auto V is 55% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| high / 1080p | 27−30 | 14−16 |
| ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 10−12 |
| QHD / 1440p | 18−20 | 10−12 |
| 4K / 2160p | 10−11 | 3−4 |
| low / 720p | 75−80 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 35−40 | 18−20 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Metro Exodus is 88% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| low / 768p | 130−140 | 120−130 |
| medium / 1080p | 120−130 | 110−120 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Minecraft is 8% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| low / 720p | 100−110 | 75−80 |
| medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS is 24% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| high / 1080p | 27−30 | 16−18 |
| ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 10−12 |
| QHD / 1440p | 12−14 | 2−3 |
| 4K / 2160p | 8−9 | 2−3 |
| low / 720p | 70−75 | 40−45 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 21−24 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 87% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
| low / 768p | 140−150 | 80−85 |
| medium / 768p | 90−95 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 50−55 | 27−30 |
| ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 14−16 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 9−10 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 81% more, than Quadro K4200. | ||
| low / 768p | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| medium / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| ultra / 1080p | 55−60 | 40−45 |
| high / 768p | − | 55−60 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti in World of Tanks is 7% more, than Quadro K4200. |
||
Full Specs
| GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro K4200 | |
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
| Code name | TU117 | GK104 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | no data | 22 July 2014 |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1725 MHz | 784 MHz |
| Transistor count | 4,700 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 87. 81 |
|
| Floating-point performance | 2,107 gflops | |
| Length | 229 mm | 241 mm |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 5400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | |
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | |
| CUDA | 3.0 | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 119 Mh/s | |
|
Check Price |
Similar compares
- GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs Radeon RX 570
- GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs Tesla M6
- Quadro K4200 vs Radeon RX 570
- Quadro K4200 vs Tesla M6
- GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs GeForce GTX 680MX
- GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs GRID M60 1Q
- Quadro K4200 vs GeForce GTX 680MX
- Quadro K4200 vs GRID M60 1Q
Manli GeForce GTX 1650 vs Nvidia Quadro K4000: What is the difference?
48points
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
34points
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
54 facts in comparison
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
Nvidia Quadro K4000
Why is Manli GeForce GTX 1650 better than Nvidia Quadro K4000?
- 675MHz faster GPU clock speed?
1485MHzvs810MHz - 1.
74 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
2.98 TFLOPSvs1.24 TFLOPS - 40.28 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
53.28 GPixel/svs13 GPixel/s - 5W lower TDP?
75Wvs80W - 596MHz faster memory clock speed?
2000MHzvs1404MHz - 2384MHz higher effective memory clock speed?
8000MHzvs5616MHz - 33.33% more VRAM?
4GBvs3GB - 41.44 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
93.24 GTexels/svs51.8 GTexels/s
Why is Nvidia Quadro K4000 better than Manli GeForce GTX 1650?
- 7GB/s more memory bandwidth?
135GB/svs128GB/s - 64bit wider memory bus width?
192bitvs128bit - 8 more texture mapping units (TMUs)?
64vs56 - 2 more DisplayPort outputs?
2vs0 - Has Double Precision Floating Point (DPFP)?
- 14mm shorter?
111mmvs125mm
Which are the most popular comparisons?
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro M2000
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gaming
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 970
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 12GB
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro 4000
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro M4000
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
AMD Radeon RX 560X
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
Nvidia GeForce 940MX
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia Quadro P4000
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 960
Nvidia Quadro K4000
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
1 User reviews
Manli GeForce GTX 1650
9.
0/10
1 User reviews
Nvidia Quadro K4000
0 User reviews
Nvidia Quadro K4000
0.0/10
0 User reviews
Features
Value for money
9.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Gaming
8.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Performance
7.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Fan noise
10.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Reliability
10.0/10
1 votes
No reviews yet
Performance
1.GPU clock speed
1485MHz
810MHz
The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.
2.GPU turbo
1665MHz
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K4000)
When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
3. pixel rate
53.28 GPixel/s
13 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
4.floating-point performance
2.98 TFLOPS
1.24 TFLOPS
Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.
5.texture rate
93.24 GTexels/s
51.8 GTexels/s
The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
2000MHz
1404MHz
The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.
7.shading units
Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.
8.texture mapping units (TMUs)
TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene.
More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.
9.render output units (ROPs)
The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.
Memory
1.effective memory speed
8000MHz
5616MHz
The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
128GB/s
135GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.VRAM
VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.
4.memory bus width
128bit
192bit
A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.
5.version of GDDR memory
Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.
6.Supports ECC memory
✖Manli GeForce GTX 1650
✖Nvidia Quadro K4000
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
Features
1.DirectX version
DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
2.OpenGL version
OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
3.OpenCL version
Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.
4.Supports multi-display technology
✔Manli GeForce GTX 1650
✔Nvidia Quadro K4000
The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.
5.load GPU temperature
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K4000)
A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖Manli GeForce GTX 1650
✖Nvidia Quadro K4000
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.
7.Supports 3D
✔Manli GeForce GTX 1650
✔Nvidia Quadro K4000
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).
8.supports DLSS
✖Manli GeForce GTX 1650
✖Nvidia Quadro K4000
DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.
9.PassMark (G3D) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Manli GeForce GTX 1650)
This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.
Ports
1.has an HDMI output
✔Manli GeForce GTX 1650
✖Nvidia Quadro K4000
Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.
2.HDMI ports
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K4000)
More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.
3.HDMI version
HDMI 2.0
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia Quadro K4000)
Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.
4.DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.
5.DVI outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.
6.mini DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best graphics cards?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 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.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
Buy on Amazon
vs
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 month(s) later
- Around 36% higher core clock speed: 1050 MHz vs 771 MHz
- Around 50% higher boost clock speed: 1178 MHz vs 784 MHz
- Around 24% higher texture fill rate: 109 billion / sec vs 87.
81 GTexel / s - Around 24% higher pipelines: 1664 vs 1344
- Around 86% better floating-point performance: 3,920 gflops vs 2,107 gflops
- 2.2x better performance in PassMark — G3D Mark: 9657 vs 4316
- Around 54% better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 779 vs 506
- 2.5x better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 29064 vs 11745
- 3.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 105.107 vs 33.016
- Around 67% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1225.96 vs 736.063
- 3.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.737 vs 2.73
- Around 13% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.714 vs 31.588
- 7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 489.795 vs 70.194
- Around 80% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11499 vs 6373
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.
0 — Manhattan (Frames): 3698 vs 3382 - Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames): 3340 vs 3311
- Around 80% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11499 vs 6373
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps): 3698 vs 3382
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps): 3340 vs 3311
| Launch date | 19 September 2014 vs 22 July 2014 |
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz vs 771 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz vs 784 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 109 billion / sec vs 87.81 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1664 vs 1344 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,920 gflops vs 2,107 gflops |
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 9657 vs 4316 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 779 vs 506 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 29064 vs 11745 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
105.107 vs 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1225.96 vs 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.737 vs 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.714 vs 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 489.795 vs 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11499 vs 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 vs 3382 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
3340 vs 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11499 vs 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 vs 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 vs 3311 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4200
- Around 37% lower typical power consumption: 108 Watt vs 148 Watt
- 771.4x more memory clock speed: 5400 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt vs 148 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 5400 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 9657 | 4316 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 779 | 506 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 29064 | 11745 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
105.107 | 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1225.96 | 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.737 | 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.714 | 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 489.795 | 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11499 | 6373 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
3698 | 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11499 | 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3311 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 3647 | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Maxwell 2. 0 |
Kepler |
| Code name | GM204 | GK104 |
| Launch date | 19 September 2014 | 22 July 2014 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | $854.99 |
| Place in performance rating | 232 | 592 |
| Price now | $407.76 | $446.99 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 28. 59 |
11.92 |
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz | 784 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz | 771 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1664 | |
| Floating-point performance | 3,920 gflops | 2,107 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | |
| Pipelines | 1664 | 1344 |
| Texture fill rate | 109 billion / sec | 87. 81 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 148 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Transistor count | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| HDCP | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048×1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3. 0 |
|
| Height | 4.376″ (11.1 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5″ (26.7 cm) | 241 mm |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | |
| SLI options | 4x | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pins | 1x 6-pin |
| DirectX | 12. 0 (12_1) |
12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB / s | 172.8 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 5400 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| 3D Vision | ||
| Adaptive Vertical Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| SLI | ||
| Surround |
GeForce GTX 970 vs Quadro K4200
GeForce GTX 970 vs Quadro K4200 — Th200
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Specifications
- Benchmarks
- Key Differences
- Conclusion
- Comments
Graphics card
Graphics card
Introduction
We compared two GPUs: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 versus the NVIDIA Quadro K4200.
On this page you will learn about the key differences between graphics cards and find out which has the best specs and performance.
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is a graphics card of the GeForce 900 generation based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, launched on Sep 19th, 2014. It comes with 4 Gb of GDDR5 memory clocked at 1753 MHz, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors and consumes up to 148 Watts.
The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is a graphics card of the Quadro (Kx200) generation based on the Kepler architecture, launched on Jul 22nd, 2014. It comes with 4 Gb of GDDR5 memory clocked at 1350 MHz, requires 1x 6-pin power connectors and consumes up to 108 Watts.
Specifications
Graphics Card
Name
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Release Date
Sep 19th, 2014
Jul 22nd, 2014
Bus Interface
PCIe 3.0 x16
PCIe 2.0 x16
Graphics Processor
Die Size
398 mm²
294 mm²
Memory
Bandwidth
224.
4 GB/s
172.8 GB/s
Theoretical Performance
Pixel Rate
65.97 GPixel/s
21.95 GPixel/s
Texture Rate
122.5 GTexel/s
87.81 GTexel/s
FP32 (float) performance
3.920 TFLOPS
2.107 TFLOPS
FP64 (double) performance
122.5 GFLOPS (1:32)
87.81 GFLOPS (1:24)
Clock Speeds
Base Clock
1050 MHz
771 MHz
Boost Clock
1178 MHz
784 MHz
Memory Clock
1753 MHz
1350 MHz
Render Config
Shading Units
1664
1344
Texture Units
104
112
Raster Units
56
32
Graphics Features
DirectX
12 (12_1)
12 (11_0)
OpenGL
4.6
4.6
OpenCL
3.0
3.0
Cuda
5.2
3.0
Vulkan
1.1
1.1
Board Design
TDP
148W
108W
Power Connectors
2x 6-pin
1x 6-pin
Slot Width
Dual-slot
Single-slot
Benchmarks
3DMark Graphics
3DMark is a computer benchmarking tool created and developed by UL, to measure the performance of computer hardware.
Running 3DMark produces a 3DMark score, with higher numbers indicating better performance.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Blender bmw27
Blender is the most popular 3D content creation software. It has its own Benchmark, which is widely used to determining the rendering performance of processors and graphics cards. Benchmark measures the time needed to render bmw27 scene.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
+152%
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Th200 RP
Th200 RP is a test created by Th200. It measures raw power of the components and gives score, with higher number indicating better performance.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
+81%
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Key Differences
Why is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 better than NVIDIA Quadro K4200?
Newer — released 1 month later
Has 81% better performance
Has 30% higher bandwidth — 224.
4 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s
Has 201% higher pixel rate — 65.97 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s
Has 40% higher texture rate — 122.5 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s
Has 24 more raster units
Has 320 more shading units
Why is NVIDIA Quadro K4200 better than NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970?
Consumes up to 28% less energy — 108 Watts versus 148 Watts
Has 8 more texture units
Conclusion
Which is better GeForce GTX 970 or Quadro K4200?
The GeForce GTX 970 delivers 81% better performance, consumes up to 38% more energy and holds same amount of memory. Based on our research GeForce GTX 970 is more powerful than Quadro K4200.
What AMD graphics cards is equivalent to GeForce GTX 970?
The Radeon RX 480 is AMD’s closest competitor to the GeForce GTX 970. It is 2% more powerful, uses 2% more energy, and holds 4 Gb less memory.
What NVIDIA graphics cards is equivalent to GeForce GTX 970?
The GeForce RTX 3050 is NVIDIA’s closest competitor to the GeForce GTX 970.
It is 4% more powerful, uses 40% less energy, and holds same amount of memory.
How does GeForce GTX 970 perform compared to Quadro K4200 and other graphics cards?
Relative performance
Global performance
Desktop performance
Workstation performance
Quadro K4200 vs T600 GPU Comparison
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K4200 4 GB vs NVIDIA T600, specs and GPU benchmark score. Which is the better graphics card for the money?
GPU Comparison
Quickly search and compare graphics cards
Price
The cheapest price from our partner retailers
$ 239
$ 52.06
slightly less expensive
Overall Score
General gaming and workstation score
23 %
43%
significantly better overall score
Flux Core frame rate
Volumetric ray casting test, a computationally expensive method of rendering high-quality scenes
19 FPS
32 FPS
13 FPS
significantly higher Flux Core frame rate
Electron frame rate
Randomly generated noise sphere test
13 FPS
17 FPS
5 FPS
significantly higher Electron frame rate
City frame rate
Procedurally generated city scene with voxel rendering
14 FPS
22 FPS
9 FPS
significantly higher City frame rate
Clouds frame rate
Real-time noise calculation and ray marching test
10 FPS
13 FPS
3 FPS
slightly higher Clouds frame rate
Want to compare your graphics card against the Quadro K4200 and the T600? Download our free and quick PC Performance Test.
Download GPU Benchmark
Geekbench (CUDA) score
CUDA compute benchmark
28,084
212%
significantly higher Geekbench (CUDA) score
Geekbench (OpenCL) score
OpenCL compute benchmark
11,745
27,240
131%
significantly higher Geekbench (OpenCL) score
Geekbench (Vulkan) score
Vulkan compute benchmark
11,396
25,594
124%
significantly higher Geekbench (Vulkan) score
Core Clock Speed
Nominal chip frequency
780 MHz
6%
slightly higher core clock speed
735 MHz
Boost Clock Speed
Higher turbo frequency when power conditions are met
784 MHz
1,335 MHz
70%
significantly higher boost clock speed
Memory Bus Width
Number of parallel lines to the memory chips
256 Bit
100%
significantly larger memory bus width
128 Bit
Memory Bandwidth
Data transfer speed between GPU core and memory
173 GB/s
8%
slightly higher memory bandwidth
160 GB/s
TDP
Thermal Design Power: Measure of heat generated by the GPU
40 W
162%
significantly lower TDP
Pixel Rate
Number of pixels that can be rendered per second
22 Gigapixels/s
43 Gigapixels/s
94%
significantly higher pixel rate
Texture Rate
Number of textured pixels that can be rendered per second
88 Gigatexels/s
64%
significantly higher texture rate
53 Gigatexels/s
Floating Point Performance
Raw number of floating point operations per second
2 TFLOPS
23%
slightly better floating point performance
2 TFLOPS
Shading Units
Number of processors dedicated to shader processing
1,344
110%
significantly more shading units
Texture Mapping Units
Number of processors dedicated to applying textures
112
180%
significantly more texture mapping units
Render Output Processors
Number of processors dedicated to final pixel rendering
32
Identical
Rank
Ranking in the hardwareDB database
188th
of 526
151st
of 526
Release date
The official date of release of this chip
July 2014
April 2021
Memory Type
The type of memory used by this chip
GDDR5
GDDR6
DirectX Support
Maximum version of DirectX supported
11.
0
12.0
OpenGL Support
Maximum version of OpenGL supported
4.5
4.6
Quadro K4200 vs T600 specs and performance
In our benchmarks, the T600 beats the Quadro K4200 in gaming performance.
Our database shows that the Quadro K4200 has a slightly higher core clock speed. This is the frequency at which the graphics core is running at. While not necessarily an indicator of overall performance, this metric can be useful when comparing two GPUs based on the same architecture. Despite this, the T600 has a significantly higher boost clock speed. The boost clock speed is the frequency that the GPU core can reach if the temperature is low enough. The allows for higher performance in certain scenarios.
In addition, the T600 has a significantly lower TDP at 40 W when compared to the Quadro K4200 at 105 W. This is not a measure of performance, but rather the amount of heat generated by the chip when running at its highest speed.
In terms of raw gaming performance in our GPU benchmark, the T600 is better than the Quadro K4200.
Latest posts
How to choose a power supply for your gaming PC: wattage and efficiencyJuly 11, 2022
How to compare GPUs and GPUs: find the best components for gamingJuly 02, 2022
Best PC benchmarking tools 2022: how to performance test your gaming PCJuly 02, 2022
Popular GPU Comparisons
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
GeForce RTX 2070 vs GeForce RTX 3060
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER vs GeForce RTX 3060
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
GeForce RTX 2060 vs GeForce RTX 3060
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce RTX 3060
Radeon RX 570 vs Radeon RX 6500 XT
Compare NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support.
Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: 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.
NVIDIA Quadro P4000
versus
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Benefits
Reasons to choose NVIDIA Quadro P4000
- Newer video card, approx. vs 771 MHz
- Boost core clock 89% faster: 1480 MHz vs 784 MHz
- Texturing speed 89% faster: 165.
8 GTexel / s vs 87.81 GTexel / s - 33% more shader processors: 1792 vs 1344
- 2.5x more floating point performance: 5,304 gflops vs 2,107 gflops : 16 nm vs 28 nm
- Approximately 8% less power consumption: 100 Watt vs 108 Watt
- 2x the maximum memory size(s): 8 GB vs 4 GB
- 41% more memory frequency: 7604 MHz vs 5400MHz
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark — G3D Mark benchmark: 11423 vs 4316
- About 63% better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark benchmark: 827 vs 506
- 3.4x better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL benchmark( a) more: 40511 vs 11745
- 4.6 times more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) benchmark: 152.325 vs 33.016
- performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) benchmark ) 2.2 times more: 1590.392 vs 736.063
- 4.2x more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.365 vs 2.73
- About 46x performance in CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) benchmark % more: 45.977 vs 31.588 - 10.7 times more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) benchmark: 751.626 vs 70.194
- 2.4 times more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) benchmark (a) more: 15267 vs 6373
- GFXBench 4.0 performance — Manhattan (Frames) about 10% faster: 3714 vs 3382
- GFXBench 4.0 performance — T-Rex (Frames) about 1% faster: 3358 vs 3311
- GFX benchmark performance 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 2.4 times more: 15267 vs 6373
- About 10% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) benchmark: 3714 vs 3382
- Performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T- Rex (Fps) about 1% more: 3358 vs 3311
| Issue date | 6 February 2017 vs 22 July 2014 |
| Core frequency | 1202 MHz vs 771 MHz |
| Boost core clock | 1480 MHz vs 784 MHz |
| Texturing speed | 165. 8 GTexel/s vs 87.81 GTexel/s |
| Number of shaders | 1792 vs 1344 |
| Floating point performance | 5.304 gflops vs 2.107 gflops |
| Process | 16 nm vs 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 108 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 4 GB |
| Memory frequency | 7604 MHz vs 5400 MHz |
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 11423 vs 4316 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 827 vs 506 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 40511 vs 11745 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
152.325 vs 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1590.392 vs 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 vs 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.977 vs 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 vs 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 vs 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 vs 3382 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
3358 vs 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 vs 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 vs 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3311 |
Benchmark comparison
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
| 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) |
|
365 | Name | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 11423 | 4316 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 827 | 506 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 40511 | 11745 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
152.325 | 33.016 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1590.392 | 736.063 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 | 2.73 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.977 | 31.588 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 | 70.194 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 | 6373 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
3714 | 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 | 6373 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 3382 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3311 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 4880 | 0 |
Performance comparison
| NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Codename | GP104 | GK104 |
| Production date | February 6, 2017 | July 22, 2014 |
| Price at first issue date | $815 | $854. 99 |
| Place in the ranking | 162 | 592 |
| Price now | $799.99 | $446.99 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 17.17 | 11.92 |
| Boost core clock | 1480MHz | 784MHz |
| Core frequency | 1202MHz | 771 MHz |
| Floating point performance | 5. 304 gflops |
2.107 gflops |
| Process | 16nm | 28nm |
| Number of shaders | 1792 | 1344 |
| Texturing speed | 165.8 GTexel/s | 87.81 GTexel/s |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |
| Video connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort | 1. 4 |
|
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 241 mm |
| Additional power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | |
| Vulcan | ||
| Maximum memory size | 8GB | 4GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 192GB/s | 172. 8 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory frequency | 7604MHz | 5400MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| 3D Stereo | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus |
AMD Cayman vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200.
Comparative characteristics and benchmarks of video cards
VS
AMD Cayman
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
General information
The general information section of the video card comparison list contains release date, type, overall rating and other useful data to determine the winner between AMD Cayman and NVIDIA Quadro K4200. Please note that the comparison takes place on all indicators, and below are the ratings from synthetic benchmarks that define different criteria in games and work applications.
Not Rated
Position in the performance rating
284
No data
Reason
20.19
TERASCALE 3
Architecture
KAYMAN 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
Type
Workstation
no data
Release date
22 July 2014 (7 years ago)
No data
Starting price
1536
conveyors
1344
No data
Tibility of the nucleus
771 MHZ
No data 9000 nm
Process
28 nm
n.
a.
Power Consumption (TDP)
108 Watt
n.a.0002 Number of textures processed in 1 second
87.81
No data
Swimming of
2.107 GFLOPS
1536
Converse / CUDA nucads 9000 1344 9000
No data. Speed
2.640 million
Number of transistors
3.540 million
n.a.0015
Let’s discuss the dimensions (length, width, height) of AMD Cayman and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 graphics cards. As well as the main types of connectors and connected interfaces
No data
Interface
PCIe 2.0 X16
No data
length
241 mm
No data
Additional power
1x 6-PIN
Memory (frequency and overclocking)
Graphics card memory plays an important role in both games and graphics applications. The higher the standard ( GDDR ), the better. It directly affects the speed and efficiency of data processing. What is the difference in type, base and turbo frequency, GDDR bandwidth between AMD Cayman and NVIDIA Quadro K4200:
n/a
Memory type
GDDR5
n/a
Memory bus width
256 Bit
No data
Memory frequency
5400 MHz
N/A
Memory bandwidth
172.
8 GB/s
Port and display support
Let’s find out the difference in ports that AMD Cayman and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 graphics cards are equipped with. Pay attention to the number of ports and the maximum resolution of supported monitors.
N/A
Display connections
1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
API support
AMD’s Cayman versus NVIDIA Quadro K4200 rivalry is nearly over. Hardware support (API) does not greatly affect the overall performance, it is not taken into account in synthetic benchmarks and other performance tests.
11.2 (11_0)
DirectX
12 (11_0)
4.4
Opengl
4.6
No data
VULKAN
+
+ AMD Cayman Versus nvidia quadromas navidia quadrom Popular comparisons with selected graphics cards
| one. |
NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs. NVIDIA Quadro K4000
|
|
| 2. | AMD Cayman vs. NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT | |
| 3. | AMD Cayman vs. Intel HD Graphics 4600 | |
| four. |
Intel UHD Graphics 600 vs. AMD Cayman
|
|
| 5. | AMD Cayman vs. NVIDIA Tesla T4 | |
| 6. | AMD Cayman vs. NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 | |
| 7. |
AMD Cayman vs. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
|
|
| eight. | NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs. AMD Cayman | |
| 9. | AMD Cayman vs. NVIDIA Titan X Pascal | |
| ten. |
AMD Cayman vs. AMD Radeon R5 M240
|
|
| eleven. | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | |
| 12. | AMD Cayman vs. NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | |
| 13. |
AMD Cayman vs.
|