Quadro P4200 vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms GTS 450 by a whopping 637% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 731 | 215 |
| Place by popularity | 100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.66 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.23 | 17.40 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 192 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1647 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 237.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 | 144 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| 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 | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | 192.3 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 Connectors | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
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:
| 900p | 30
−633%
| 220−230
+633%
|
| Full HD | 37
−630%
| 270−280
+630%
|
| 1200p | 27
−604%
| 190−200
+604%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.49 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
−1086%
|
80−85
+1086%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−756%
|
75−80
+756%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−640%
|
110−120
+640%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3267%
|
100−110
+3267%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−756%
|
75−80
+756%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−770%
|
85−90
+770%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
−1086%
|
80−85
+1086%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−328%
|
75−80
+328%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−563%
|
120−130
+563%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−640%
|
110−120
+640%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−760%
|
85−90
+760%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−410%
|
150−160
+410%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−583%
|
80−85
+583%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3267%
|
100−110
+3267%
|
| World of Tanks | 86
−201%
|
250−260
+201%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−756%
|
75−80
+756%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−770%
|
85−90
+770%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−328%
|
75−80
+328%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−640%
|
110−120
+640%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−410%
|
150−160
+410%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3267%
|
100−110
+3267%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−629%
|
170−180
+629%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−596%
|
160−170
+596%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−144%
|
21−24
+144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−825%
|
70−75
+825%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3250%
|
65−70
+3250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−825%
|
35−40
+825%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−518%
|
65−70
+518%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−670%
|
75−80
+670%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1033%
|
30−35
+1033%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how GTS 450 and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 633% faster in 900p
- Quadro P4200 is 630% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4200 is 604% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 4100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is ahead in 59 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.42 | 25.22 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro P4200 has a 637.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 6% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop card while Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
