Quadro M2000 vs K4200
Aggregated performance score
K4200 outperforms M2000 by 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 386 | 404 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 4.34 | 4.03 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (9 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $854.99 | $437.75 |
| Current price | $311 (0.4x MSRP) | $285 (0.7x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro K4200 has 8% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
Technical specs
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 cores | 1344 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 771 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 784 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 87.81 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,107 gflops | 1,812 gflops |
Size and 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 | 201 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
Memory
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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5400 MHz | 6612 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
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 | DP DP DP DP |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 5.2 |
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.
K4200 outperforms M2000 by 8% based on our aggregated 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%
K4200 outperforms M2000 by 8% 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%
M2000 outperforms K4200 by 18% 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%
M2000 outperforms K4200 by 15% 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%
M2000 outperforms K4200 by 46% 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%
K4200 outperforms M2000 by 18% 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.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 11.17 | 10.32 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 8 April 2016 |
| Cost | $854.99 | $437.75 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 75 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K4200 and Quadro M2000.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
