Quadro K1000M vs K4200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

Quadro K4200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 108 Watt
11.18
+453%

K4200 outperforms K1000M by a whopping 453% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking389843
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.610.16
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104N14P-Q1
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date22 July 2014 (9 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$854.99 $119.90
Current price$311 (0.4x MSRP)$232 (1.9x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K4200 has 2781% better value for money than K1000M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1344192
Core clock speed771 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed784 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate87.8113.60
Floating-point performance2,107 gflops326.4 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro K4200 and Quadro K1000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5400 MHz1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s28.8 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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

Supported technologies

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

Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

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

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 11.18
+453%
K1000M 2.02

K4200 outperforms K1000M by 453% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro K4200 4321
+453%
K1000M 782

K4200 outperforms K1000M by 453% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

Quadro K4200 11890
+602%
K1000M 1694

K4200 outperforms K1000M by 602% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Quadro K4200 12315
+716%
K1000M 1509

K4200 outperforms K1000M by 716% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

Quadro K4200 8946
+570%
K1000M 1335

K4200 outperforms K1000M by 570% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

Quadro K4200 40
+700%
K1000M 5

K4200 outperforms K1000M by 700% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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:

900p45−50
+400%
9
−400%
Full HD95−100
+428%
18
−428%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.18 2.02
Recency 22 July 2014 1 June 2012
Cost $854.99 $119.9
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 45 Watt

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation card while Quadro K1000M 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.

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
NVIDIA Quadro K1000M
Quadro K1000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 141 vote

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 73 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M 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.