Quadro K420 vs GeForce GTX 275
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 275 with Quadro K420, including specs and performance data.
275 outperforms K420 by an impressive 85% 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 | 782 | 963 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.29 | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 1.13 | 3.26 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $96.67 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 275 has 263% better value for money than Quadro K420.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 240 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 633 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 50.64 | 14.02 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6739 TFLOPS | 0.3364 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 | 16 |
| TMUs | 80 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 256 KB |
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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 160 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | GDDR3 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 1 GB/2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1134 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 127.0 GB/s | Up to 29 GB/s |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | 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 | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.05 | 1.65 |
| Recency | 15 January 2009 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 1 GB/2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 41 Watt |
GTX 275 has a 84.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro K420, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 14.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 434.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 275 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K420 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 275 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K420 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
