Quadro P4200 vs GeForce Go 7600 GT

Place in performance ranking	1181	196
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	7.59
Architecture	Curie (2003−2013)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	G73M	GP104
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 August 2006 (17 years ago)	7 May 2018 (6 years ago)
Current price	$535	$1526

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Go 7600 GT and Quadro P4200 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	17	2304
Core clock speed	5 MHz	1215 MHz
Boost clock speed	500 MHz	1480 MHz
Number of transistors	177 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	90 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	115 Watt
Texture fill rate	6.000	237.2

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce Go 7600 GT and Quadro P4200 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	large
Interface	PCIe 1.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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, GDDR2, GDDR1	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	7132 MHz
Memory bandwidth	19.2 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

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	9.0c (9_3)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	3.0	6.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	no data	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Go 7600 GT 0.54

Quadro P4200 25.09
+4546%

Quadro P4200 outperforms GeForce Go 7600 GT by 4546% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Go 7600 GT 210

Quadro P4200 10685
+4988%

Quadro P4200 outperforms GeForce Go 7600 GT by 4988% in Passmark.

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

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−1267%

40−45
+1267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2650%	55−60 +2650%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −3900%	80−85 +3900%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1933%	60−65 +1933%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −673%	85−90 +673%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −850%	75−80 +850%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2650%	55−60 +2650%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −3900%	80−85 +3900%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1933%	60−65 +1933%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −673%	85−90 +673%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −850%	75−80 +850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −1800%	55−60 +1800%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2650%	55−60 +2650%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −3900%	80−85 +3900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −673%	85−90 +673%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −1800%	55−60 +1800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −750%	30−35 +750%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −4200%	40−45 +4200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −1633%	50−55 +1633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%