GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 vs Quadro K4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4200 with GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
K4200 outperforms 780 Rev. 2 by a small 6% 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 | 475 | 487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.94 | 1.10 |
| Power efficiency | 7.36 | 3.00 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK110B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 10 September 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $854.99 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 780 Rev. 2 has 17% better value for money than Quadro K4200.
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 771 MHz | 863 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 784 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 87.81 | 173.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.107 TFLOPS | 4.156 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 112 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1536 KB |
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 | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
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 | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 3.5 |
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 | 10.31 | 9.72 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 10 September 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 250 Watt |
Quadro K4200 has a 6.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 131.5% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K4200 and GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2.
Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
