Quadro P4200 vs FirePro W4170M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4170M and Quadro P4200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P4200 outperforms W4170M by a whopping 824% 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 | 870 | 266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.81 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Opal | GP104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2015 (10 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1647 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 237.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 864 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 (1.2) | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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 | 22
−809%
| 200−210
+809%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1814%
|
130−140
+1814%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1075%
|
90−95
+1075%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1814%
|
130−140
+1814%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1000%
|
75−80
+1000%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−800%
|
110−120
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−623%
|
90−95
+623%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−281%
|
160−170
+281%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1075%
|
90−95
+1075%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1814%
|
130−140
+1814%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−422%
|
250−260
+422%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−365%
|
120−130
+365%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1000%
|
75−80
+1000%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−800%
|
110−120
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−623%
|
90−95
+623%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−1333%
|
85−90
+1333%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1200%
|
50−55
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−678%
|
70−75
+678%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−281%
|
160−170
+281%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1075%
|
90−95
+1075%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−365%
|
120−130
+365%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1000%
|
75−80
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−623%
|
90−95
+623%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−586%
|
45−50
+586%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−678%
|
70−75
+678%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−281%
|
160−170
+281%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−800%
|
110−120
+800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−784%
|
160−170
+784%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−629%
|
170−180
+629%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−818%
|
200−210
+818%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−960%
|
50−55
+960%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1250%
|
50−55
+1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−850%
|
35−40
+850%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−962%
|
130−140
+962%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1014%
|
75−80
+1014%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how W4170M and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 809% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 2700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 performs better in 58 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.51 | 23.19 |
| Recency | 23 April 2015 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
Quadro P4200 has a 823.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4170M 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.
