FirePro M4100 vs Quadro K4200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4200 with FirePro M4100, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K4200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 108 Watt
11.12
+309%

K4200 outperforms M4100 by a whopping 309% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking428809
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.33no data
Power efficiency7.18no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGK104Mars
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)16 October 2013 (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.

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 cores1344384
Core clock speed771 MHz670 MHz
Boost clock speed784 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Wattno data
Texture fill rate87.8116.08
Floating-point processing power2.107 TFLOPS0.5146 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs11224

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s64 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

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA3.0-

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.

Quadro K4200 11.12
+309%
FirePro M4100 2.72

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 K4200 4329
+309%
FirePro M4100 1059

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 K4200 12054
+138%
FirePro M4100 5067

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 HD40−45
+264%
11
−264%

Cost per frame, $

1080p21.37no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Quadro K4200 and FirePro M4100 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K4200 is 264% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.12 2.72
Recency 22 July 2014 16 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB

Quadro K4200 has a 308.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M4100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation card while FirePro M4100 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 K4200
Quadro K4200
AMD FirePro M4100
FirePro M4100

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.


3.7 163 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 5 votes

Rate FirePro M4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K4200 or FirePro M4100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.