Quadro P4200 vs GeForce 8700M GT SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8700M GT SLI with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.

8700M GT SLI
2007
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.79

P4200 outperforms 8700M GT SLI by a whopping 3086% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1158223
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.9417.29
ArchitectureG8x (2007)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameNB8E-SEGP104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date18 September 2007 (17 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 cores642304
Core clock speed625 MHz1227 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1647 MHz
Number of transistors578 Million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rateno data237.2
Floating-point processing powerno data7.589 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data144

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 sizelargelarge
Interfaceno dataMXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data192.3 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1012 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-6.1

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−557%
45−50
+557%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2450%
50−55
+2450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−557%
45−50
+557%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2450%
50−55
+2450%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1050%
90−95
+1050%
Valorant 30−33
−443%
160−170
+443%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−557%
45−50
+557%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 20−22
−1175%
250−260
+1175%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2450%
50−55
+2450%
Dota 2 12−14
−831%
120−130
+831%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
Metro Exodus 0−1 50−55
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1050%
90−95
+1050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1320%
70−75
+1320%
Valorant 30−33
−443%
160−170
+443%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−557%
45−50
+557%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2450%
50−55
+2450%
Dota 2 12−14
−831%
120−130
+831%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1050%
90−95
+1050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1320%
70−75
+1320%
Valorant 30−33
−443%
160−170
+443%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 21−24
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
−5467%
160−170
+5467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−4275%
170−180
+4275%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 21−24
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−2950%
60−65
+2950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−5500%
55−60
+5500%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−1800%
18−20
+1800%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
Valorant 4−5
−3350%
130−140
+3350%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 10−11
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 5500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P4200 is ahead in 36 tests (57%)
  • there's a draw in 27 tests (43%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.79 25.17
Recency 18 September 2007 21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 100 Watt

8700M GT SLI has 72.4% lower power consumption.

Quadro P4200, on the other hand, has a 3086.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8700M GT SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8700M GT SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT SLI
GeForce 8700M GT SLI
NVIDIA Quadro P4200
Quadro P4200

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2 4 votes

Rate GeForce 8700M GT SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 58 votes

Rate Quadro P4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8700M GT SLI or Quadro P4200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.