Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Quadro K4200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GRID K2 GRID K240Q GRID K260Q GRID K280Q GRID K520 Quadro 4100 Quadro K4200 Quadro K5000 Quadro K5000 Mac Edition Quadro K5000 SYNC Tesla K8 Tesla K10
VS
Iris Xe Graphics G4 Iris Xe Graphics G4 48EU Mobile Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EU Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4200 with Iris Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K4200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 108 Watt
11.22
+2.7%

K4200 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Quadro K4200 Quadro K4200
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking418425
Place by popularitynot in top-10035
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.09no data
Power efficiency7.24no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGK104Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$854.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores134496
Core clock speed771 MHzno data
Boost clock speed784 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Wattno data
Texture fill rate87.81no data
Floating-point processing power2.107 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no data

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 x16no data
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 typeGDDR5DDR4
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1350 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/sno data
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 data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)DirectX 12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA3.0-

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
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 47 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 11.22 10.93
Recency 22 July 2014 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm

Quadro K4200 has a 2.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K4200 and Iris Xe Graphics G7.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7
Iris Xe Graphics G7
Like
Like

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro K4200 Quadro K4200
vs
RTX A400 RTX A400
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7
vs
RX 560X Mobile Radeon RX 560X Mobile
Quadro K4200 Quadro K4200
vs
FirePro W7000 FirePro W7000
Quadro M6000 Quadro M6000
vs
RTX 3090 Ti GeForce RTX 3090 Ti
Quadro 4000 Quadro 4000
vs
RX Vega 24 Mobile Radeon RX Vega 24 Mobile
HD Graphics 630 HD Graphics 630
vs
9600 GT Green Edition GeForce 9600 GT Green Edition
R7 M370 Radeon R7 M370
vs
HD 7670A Radeon HD 7670A
Quadro 4000 Quadro 4000
vs
ATI 2450 Multi-View FirePro 2450 Multi-View
Wii U GPU Wii U GPU
vs
Tegra 2 Tegra 2
GTX 1070 GeForce GTX 1070
vs
HD Graphics 500 HD Graphics 500
ATI 9550 Radeon 9550
vs
FX 5500 PCI GeForce FX 5500 PCI
Quadro4 500 Go GL Quadro4 500 Go GL
vs
RX Vega 11 Efficient Radeon RX Vega 11 Efficient
HD 7850 Radeon HD 7850
vs
R7 Graphics Radeon R7 Graphics

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.7 156 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2470 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.