Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P4200 vs M6000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M6000
2015
12 GB GDDR5
30.37
+21.3%
Quadro P4200
2018
8 GB GDDR5
25.04
M6000 outperforms P4200 by 21% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 169 | 196 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 5.72 | 7.55 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 21 March 2015 (9 years old) | 7 May 2018 (5 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | no data |
| Current price | $1792 (0.4x MSRP) | $1526 |
Value for money
Quadro P4200 has 32% better value for money than Quadro M6000.
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 | 3072 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 | 237.2 |
| Floating-point performance | 6,844 gflops | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro M6000 and Quadro P4200 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 size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 7132 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 6.1 |
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.
M6000 outperforms P4200 by 21% 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%
M6000 outperforms P4200 by 11% 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%
M6000 outperforms P4200 by 7% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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%
P4200 outperforms M6000 by 16% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 30.37 | 25.04 |
| Recency | 21 March 2015 | 7 May 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 115 Watt |
The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M6000 is a workstation card while Quadro P4200 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
