Quadro K4200 vs GeForce GTX 570
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 570 with Quadro K4200, including specs and performance data.
K4200 outperforms GTX 570 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 510 | 490 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.94 | 0.95 |
| Power efficiency | 3.35 | 7.44 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2010 (15 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $854.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 570 has 104% better value for money than Quadro K4200.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 784 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 | 87.81 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.405 TFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 60 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 112 KB |
| L2 Cache | 640 KB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1900 MHz (3800 data rate) | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 80
−6.3%
| 85−90
+6.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.36
+131%
| 10.06
−131%
|
- GTX 570 has 131% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−8.7%
|
100−105
+8.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−3.4%
|
150−160
+3.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−8.7%
|
75−80
+8.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−8.7%
|
100−105
+8.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−8.7%
|
75−80
+8.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−8.7%
|
100−105
+8.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−3.1%
|
100−105
+3.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how GTX 570 and Quadro K4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro K4200 is 6% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.48 | 10.38 |
| Recency | 7 December 2010 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 108 Watt |
Quadro K4200 has a 9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 103% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 570 and Quadro K4200.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 570 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K4200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
