Quadro P4200 vs Quadro 4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000 with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 142 Watt
3.68

P4200 outperforms 4000 by a whopping 558% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking715222
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.19no data
Power efficiency1.8617.38
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGF100GP104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date2 November 2010 (14 years ago)21 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 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 cores2562304
Core clock speed475 MHz1227 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1647 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate15.20237.2
Floating-point processing power0.4864 TFLOPS7.589 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs32144

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 datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed702 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.86 GB/s192.3 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.06.1

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.

Quadro 4000 3.68
Quadro P4200 24.22
+558%

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.

Quadro 4000 1474
Quadro P4200 10718
+627%

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.

Quadro 4000 5017
Quadro P4200 38375
+665%

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

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
World of Tanks 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
World of Tanks 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.68 24.22
Recency 2 November 2010 21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro P4200 has a 558.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 150% more advanced lithography process, and 42% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000 is a workstation card while Quadro P4200 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 Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000
NVIDIA Quadro P4200
Quadro P4200

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.


3.5 188 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 58 votes

Rate Quadro P4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 4000 or Quadro P4200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.