Quadro P4200 vs GeForce GTX 965M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 965M with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms GTX 965M by a whopping 153% 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 | 494 | 254 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.95 | 17.64 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM206S | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2016 (9 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 | 1024 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 944 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1647 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 73.60 | 237.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.355 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 | large | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 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 |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) 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.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 46
−139%
| 110−120
+139%
|
| 1440p | 25
−140%
| 60−65
+140%
|
| 4K | 21
−138%
| 50−55
+138%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
−168%
|
130−140
+168%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−168%
|
50−55
+168%
|
| God of War | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 52
−80.8%
|
90−95
+80.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
−168%
|
130−140
+168%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−168%
|
50−55
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
−103%
|
75−80
+103%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−109%
|
110−120
+109%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 47
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−164%
|
70−75
+164%
|
| God of War | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−82.2%
|
160−170
+82.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 43
−119%
|
90−95
+119%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
−168%
|
130−140
+168%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−80.3%
|
250−260
+80.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−168%
|
50−55
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 84
−44%
|
120−130
+44%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
−120%
|
75−80
+120%
|
| Fortnite | 34
−244%
|
110−120
+244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
−129%
|
90−95
+129%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−164%
|
70−75
+164%
|
| God of War | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−146%
|
85−90
+146%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
−247%
|
50−55
+247%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
−142%
|
90−95
+142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−126%
|
70−75
+126%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−82.2%
|
160−170
+82.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35
−169%
|
90−95
+169%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−168%
|
50−55
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 77
−57.1%
|
120−130
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 32
−141%
|
75−80
+141%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 28
−236%
|
90−95
+236%
|
| God of War | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−254%
|
90−95
+254%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
−289%
|
70−75
+289%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−82.2%
|
160−170
+82.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 34
−244%
|
110−120
+244%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−137%
|
160−170
+137%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−231%
|
40−45
+231%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−210%
|
30−35
+210%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−265%
|
170−180
+265%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−96.1%
|
200−210
+96.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−187%
|
65−70
+187%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−229%
|
21−24
+229%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 22
−145%
|
50−55
+145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−173%
|
60−65
+173%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−180%
|
27−30
+180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 19
−195%
|
55−60
+195%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−120%
|
40−45
+120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−169%
|
35−40
+169%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−182%
|
130−140
+182%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−227%
|
35−40
+227%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 44
−77.3%
|
75−80
+77.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−180%
|
27−30
+180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−178%
|
24−27
+178%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4
−550%
|
24−27
+550%
|
This is how GTX 965M and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 139% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4200 is 140% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P4200 is 138% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 667% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed GTX 965M in all 65 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.15 | 23.14 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
Quadro P4200 has a 152.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 965M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 965M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
