Quadro 2000M vs Quadro K4200

Place in the ranking	420	889
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.17	0.28
Power efficiency	7.13	2.52
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GK104	GF106
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	22 July 2014 (10 years ago)	13 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$854.99	$46.56

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K4200 has 675% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.

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	192
Core clock speed	771 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	784 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,540 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	87.81	17.60
Floating-point processing power	2.107 TFLOPS	0.4224 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	112	32

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 size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1350 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	172.8 GB/s	28.8 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 Connectors

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	3.0	2.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro K4200 11.23
+456%

Quadro 2000M 2.02

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
+456%

Quadro 2000M 778

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 12072
+254%

Quadro 2000M 3411

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro K4200 40
+471%

Quadro 2000M 7

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 HD

200−210
+441%

−441%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.27

1.26

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how Quadro K4200 and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:

Quadro K4200 is 441% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.23	2.02
Recency	22 July 2014	13 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	55 Watt

Quadro K4200 has a 455.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 96.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation card while Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation one.

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