Radeon R7 260X vs Quadro K4200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4200 with Radeon R7 260X, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K4200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 108 Watt
11.24
+35.7%

K4200 outperforms R7 260X by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking421507
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.203.58
Power efficiency7.134.94
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGK104Bonaire
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$854.99 $139

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 260X has 63% better value for money than Quadro K4200.

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 cores1344896
Core clock speed771 MHzno data
Boost clock speed784 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt115 Watt
Texture fill rate87.8161.60
Floating-point processing power2.107 TFLOPS1.971 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11256

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mm170 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1 x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s104 GB/s

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 DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)DirectX® 12
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+-
CUDA3.0-

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 11.24
+35.7%
R7 260X 8.28

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 4331
+35.8%
R7 260X 3189

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 11.24 8.28
Recency 22 July 2014 8 October 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 115 Watt

Quadro K4200 has a 35.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and 6.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 260X is a desktop 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
AMD Radeon R7 260X
Radeon R7 260X

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.


3.7 160 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 393 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260X 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.