FirePro D300 vs Quadro K4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4200 and FirePro D300, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K4200 outperforms D300 by a moderate 12% 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 | 461 | 490 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.89 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.27 | 4.67 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $854.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1344 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 771 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 784 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 87.81 | 68.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.107 TFLOPS | 2.176 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 80 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 162.6 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 10.03 | 8.96 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 18 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 150 Watt |
Quadro K4200 has a 11.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 38.9% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro D300 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
