M2000 vs K4200

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

Quadro K4200
11.15
+8.3%

K4200 outperforms M2000 by 8% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking384403
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money4.264.05
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019)
GPU code nameGK104GM206
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date22 July 2014 (9 years old)8 April 2016 (7 years old)
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 5% 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 cores1344768
Core clock speed771 MHz796 MHz
Boost clock speed784 MHz1163 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate87.8155.82
Floating-point performance2,107 gflops1,812 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mm201 mm
Width1-slot1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5400 MHz6612 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/sUp 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortDP DP DP DP
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4

Technologies

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

3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Desktop Managementno data+

API support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12
Shader Model5.15
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA3.05.2

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.

Quadro K4200 11.15
+8.3%
Quadro M2000 10.30

K4200 outperforms M2000 by 8% in our combined 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 4322
+8.2%
Quadro M2000 3993

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%

Quadro K4200 11882
Quadro M2000 13948
+17.4%

M2000 outperforms K4200 by 17% 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 12204
Quadro M2000 14089
+15.4%

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%

Quadro K4200 8946
Quadro M2000 13100
+46.4%

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%

Quadro K4200 40
+17.6%
Quadro M2000 34

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 11.15 10.30
Recency 22 July 2014 8 April 2016
Cost $854.99 $437.75
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 75 Watt

We couldn't decide between Quadro K4200 and Quadro M2000. The differences in performance seem too small.


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

User ratings

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 M2000
Quadro M2000

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 137 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 189 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.