Radeon R9 255 OEM vs Quadro K4200

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking418not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.09no data
Power efficiency7.22no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGK104Cape Verde
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)21 December 2013 (10 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 cores1344512
Core clock speed771 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed784 MHz930 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate87.8129.76
Floating-point processing power2.107 TFLOPS0.9523 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 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 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s73.6 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 DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA3.0-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 22 July 2014 21 December 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 65 Watt

Quadro K4200 has an age advantage of 7 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R9 255 OEM, on the other hand, has 66.2% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro K4200 and Radeon R9 255 OEM. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 255 OEM 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 R9 255 OEM
Radeon R9 255 OEM

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.


3.7 156 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1066 votes

Rate Radeon R9 255 OEM 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.