Quadro NVS 320M vs NVS 4200M

Place in performance ranking	1127	1178
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.01	no data
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	G8x (2007−2008)
GPU code name	GF119	G84M
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	9 June 2007 (16 years ago)
Current price	$229	$66

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	48	32
Core clock speed	810 MHz	575 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	6.480	9.200
Floating-point performance	155.52 gflops	73.6 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on NVS 4200M and Quadro NVS 320M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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	medium sized	large
Interface	MXM	MXM-HE

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	DDR3	GDDR3, GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	22.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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

No outputs

API support

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	2.1	1.1

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.

NVS 4200M 0.71
+31.5%

NVS 320M 0.54

NVS 4200M outperforms Quadro NVS 320M by 31% 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%

NVS 4200M 275
+32.2%

NVS 320M 208

NVS 4200M outperforms Quadro NVS 320M by 32% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

13
+44.4%

9−10

−44.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how NVS 4200M and NVS 320M compete in popular games:

NVS 4200M is 44.4% faster than NVS 320M in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the NVS 4200M is 50% faster than the NVS 320M.

All in all, in popular games:

NVS 4200M is ahead in 3 tests (12%)
there's a draw in 22 tests (88%)

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	0.71	0.54
Recency	22 February 2011	9 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	20 Watt