Radeon Pro W6800 vs Quadro K420
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K420 and Radeon Pro W6800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro W6800 outperforms K420 by a whopping 2699% 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 | 999 | 76 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | 9.92 |
| Power efficiency | 3.27 | 15.00 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (12 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $96.67 | $2,249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W6800 has 12300% better value for money than Quadro K420.
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 | 192 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 876 MHz | 2075 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2320 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.02 | 556.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3364 TFLOPS | 17.82 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 16 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | 128 Bit | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB/2 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 891 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 29 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | 6x mini-DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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 | 4−5
−97.1%
| 137 |
| 1440p | 4−5
−96.6%
| 116 |
| 4K | 3−4 | 84
+2700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 24.17 | 16.42
+32.1%
|
| 1440p | 24.17 | 19.39
+19.8%
|
| 4K | 32.22 | 26.77
+16.9%
|
- Pro W6800 has 32% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Pro W6800 has 20% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Pro W6800 has 17% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 130−140 | 130−140 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 70 | 70 |
| Fortnite | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 270−280 | 270−280 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Dota 2 | 99 | 99 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65 | 65 |
| Fortnite | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 121 | 121 |
| Metro Exodus | 160 | 160 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 199 | 199 |
| Valorant | 270−280 | 270−280 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Dota 2 | 86 | 86 |
| Far Cry 5 | 62 | 62 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 157 | 157 |
| Valorant | 270−280 | 270−280 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 210−220 | 210−220 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400 | 350−400 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 88 | 88 |
| Metro Exodus | 171 | 171 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Far Cry 5 | 64 | 64 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110 | 100−110 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 130−140 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125 | 125 |
| Metro Exodus | 55 | 55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99 | 99 |
| Valorant | 290−300 | 290−300 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Dota 2 | 94 | 94 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60 | 60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80 | 75−80 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 70−75 |
This is how Quadro K420 and Pro W6800 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800 is 3325% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6800 is 2800% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6800 is 2700% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.72 | 48.15 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB/2 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 250 Watt |
Quadro K420 has 84% lower power consumption.
Pro W6800, on the other hand, has a 2699% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K420 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
