Radeon 740M vs Quadro K420

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K420 with Radeon 740M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K420
2014, $97
1 GB/2 GB 128-bit, 41 Watt
1.73

740M outperforms K420 by a whopping 320% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking977582
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.08no data
Power efficiency3.2412.41
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameGK107Phoenix2
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2014 (11 years ago)31 January 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$96.67 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores192256
Core clock speed876 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2800 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million20,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate14.0244.80
Floating-point processing power0.3364 TFLOPS2.867 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs1616
Ray Tracing Coresno data4
L0 Cacheno data64 KB
L1 Cache16 KB64 KB
L2 Cache256 KB2 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length160 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)IGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 type128 BitSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GB/2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed891 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidthUp to 29 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPortMotherboard Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays4no 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.

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.0-

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.

Quadro K420 1.73
Radeon 740M 7.27
+320%

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 K420 724
Samples: 442
Radeon 740M 3041
+320%
Samples: 1471

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 HD4−5
−425%
21
+425%

Cost per frame, $

1080p24.17no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 22
+0%
22
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60
+0%
60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 17
+0%
17
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27
+0%
27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 10
+0%
10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how Quadro K420 and Radeon 740M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 740M is 425% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 7.27
Recency 22 July 2014 31 January 2024
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 45 Watt

Quadro K420 has 9.8% lower power consumption.

Radeon 740M, on the other hand, has a 320.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 740M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K420 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K420 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 740M is a desktop 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 K420
Quadro K420
AMD Radeon 740M
Radeon 740M

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.


3.4 156 votes

Rate Quadro K420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 156 votes

Rate Radeon 740M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K420 or Radeon 740M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.