NVS 4200M vs GeForce GTX 1080

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 with NVS 4200M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1080
2016
8 GB GDDR5X, 180 Watt
39.53
+5242%

GTX 1080 outperforms NVS 4200M by a whopping 5242% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1061165
Place by popularity63not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.41no data
Power efficiency15.422.10
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGP104GF119
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date27 May 2016 (8 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores256048
Core clock speed1607 MHz810 MHz
Boost clock speed1733 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt25 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature94 °Cno data
Texture fill rate277.36.480
Floating-point processing power8.873 TFLOPS0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs644
TMUs1608

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)500 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5XDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed10 GB/s800 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 GB/s12.8 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 ConnectorsDP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost3.0no data
VR Ready+no data
Ansel+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA+2.1

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.

GTX 1080 39.53
+5242%
NVS 4200M 0.74

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.

GTX 1080 15555
+5227%
NVS 4200M 292

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 1080 29263
+5672%
NVS 4200M 507

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 1080 53598
+2232%
NVS 4200M 2298

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.

GTX 1080 55425
+4699%
NVS 4200M 1155

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 HD127
+877%
13
−877%
1440p78
+7700%
1−2
−7700%
4K59
+5800%
1−2
−5800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.72no data
1440p7.68no data
4K10.15no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 110−120
+5500%
2−3
−5500%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+1114%
7−8
−1114%
Cyberpunk 2077 85−90
+4250%
2−3
−4250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 110−120
+5500%
2−3
−5500%
Battlefield 5 166
+5433%
3−4
−5433%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+1114%
7−8
−1114%
Cyberpunk 2077 85−90
+4250%
2−3
−4250%
Far Cry 5 118
+5800%
2−3
−5800%
Fortnite 285
+5600%
5−6
−5600%
Forza Horizon 4 140
+2700%
5−6
−2700%
Forza Horizon 5 110−120
+5400%
2−3
−5400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 123
+1438%
8−9
−1438%
Valorant 220−230
+633%
30−33
−633%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 110−120
+5500%
2−3
−5500%
Battlefield 5 142
+7000%
2−3
−7000%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+1114%
7−8
−1114%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 272
+1260%
20−22
−1260%
Cyberpunk 2077 85−90
+4250%
2−3
−4250%
Dota 2 102
+685%
12−14
−685%
Far Cry 5 113
+5550%
2−3
−5550%
Fortnite 199
+6533%
3−4
−6533%
Forza Horizon 4 137
+2640%
5−6
−2640%
Forza Horizon 5 110−120
+5400%
2−3
−5400%
Grand Theft Auto V 119
+5850%
2−3
−5850%
Metro Exodus 74
+7300%
1−2
−7300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 113
+1313%
8−9
−1313%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Valorant 220−230
+633%
30−33
−633%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 123
+6050%
2−3
−6050%
Counter-Strike 2 47
+571%
7−8
−571%
Cyberpunk 2077 85−90
+4250%
2−3
−4250%
Dota 2 100
+669%
12−14
−669%
Far Cry 5 104
+10300%
1−2
−10300%
Forza Horizon 4 112
+2140%
5−6
−2140%
Forza Horizon 5 110−120
+5400%
2−3
−5400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 97
+1113%
8−9
−1113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 81
+1520%
5−6
−1520%
Valorant 220−230
+633%
30−33
−633%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 146
+7200%
2−3
−7200%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+8467%
3−4
−8467%
Grand Theft Auto V 72
+7100%
1−2
−7100%
Metro Exodus 45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+4275%
4−5
−4275%
Valorant 250−260
+6225%
4−5
−6225%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 98
+9700%
1−2
−9700%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Far Cry 5 77
+7600%
1−2
−7600%
Forza Horizon 4 93
+4550%
2−3
−4550%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+6500%
1−2
−6500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+6900%
1−2
−6900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95
+9400%
1−2
−9400%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 74
+393%
14−16
−393%
Metro Exodus 28 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+5500%
1−2
−5500%
Valorant 220−230
+5600%
4−5
−5600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 53 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22 0−1
Dota 2 129
+6350%
2−3
−6350%
Far Cry 5 42
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+6400%
1−2
−6400%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 34
+1600%
2−3
−1600%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 46
+2200%
2−3
−2200%

This is how GTX 1080 and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1080 is 877% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1080 is 7700% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1080 is 5800% faster in 4K

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

  • in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the GTX 1080 is 9400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1080 surpassed NVS 4200M in all 37 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 39.53 0.74
Recency 27 May 2016 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 25 Watt

GTX 1080 has a 5241.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 4200M, on the other hand, has 620% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1080 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 is a desktop card while NVS 4200M 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 GTX 1080
GeForce GTX 1080
NVIDIA NVS 4200M
NVS 4200M

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.


4.4 5632 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1080 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 156 votes

Rate NVS 4200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1080 or NVS 4200M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.