Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile vs Quadro P4200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4200 and RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro P4200
2018
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
25.22
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
2024
4 GB GDDR6, 35 Watt
27.36
+8.5%

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms P4200 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking215204
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency17.4053.94
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGP104AD107
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date21 February 2018 (6 years ago)26 February 2024 (less than a year ago)

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 cores23042048
Core clock speed1227 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1647 MHz2025 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate237.2129.6
Floating-point processing power7.589 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs14464
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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).

Laptop sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.3 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.18.9

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−6.4%
50−55
+6.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−7.8%
55−60
+7.8%
Elden Ring 80−85
−8.4%
90−95
+8.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
−3.9%
80−85
+3.9%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−6.4%
50−55
+6.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−7.8%
55−60
+7.8%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−8.1%
120−130
+8.1%
Metro Exodus 65−70
−6.1%
70−75
+6.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+1%
100−105
−1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
−3.9%
80−85
+3.9%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−6.4%
50−55
+6.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−7.8%
55−60
+7.8%
Dota 2 85−90
−3.4%
90−95
+3.4%
Elden Ring 80−85
−8.4%
90−95
+8.4%
Far Cry 5 75−80
−3.9%
80−85
+3.9%
Fortnite 120−130
−3.2%
130−140
+3.2%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−8.1%
120−130
+8.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
−4.7%
90−95
+4.7%
Metro Exodus 65−70
−6.1%
70−75
+6.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
−7.6%
170−180
+7.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
−3.7%
85−90
+3.7%
Valorant 100−110
+1%
100−105
−1%
World of Tanks 250−260
−8.1%
280−290
+8.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
−3.9%
80−85
+3.9%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−6.4%
50−55
+6.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−7.8%
55−60
+7.8%
Dota 2 85−90
−3.4%
90−95
+3.4%
Far Cry 5 75−80
−3.9%
80−85
+3.9%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−8.1%
120−130
+8.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
−7.6%
170−180
+7.6%
Valorant 100−110
+1%
100−105
−1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 40−45
−7.1%
45−50
+7.1%
Elden Ring 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
−4.7%
45−50
+4.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
−2.9%
180−190
+2.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
World of Tanks 160−170
−7.8%
180−190
+7.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
−7.8%
55−60
+7.8%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−8.1%
80−85
+8.1%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−4.5%
70−75
+4.5%
Metro Exodus 55−60
−3.4%
60−65
+3.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−8.1%
40−45
+8.1%
Valorant 65−70
−2.9%
70−75
+2.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
Dota 2 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%
Elden Ring 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
−3.9%
80−85
+3.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%
Fortnite 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−2.6%
40−45
+2.6%
Valorant 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 25.22 27.36
Recency 21 February 2018 26 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro P4200 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 8.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 185.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4200 and RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile.


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 P4200
Quadro P4200
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile

Other comparisons

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.


4.6 57 votes

Rate Quadro P4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 20 votes

Rate RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 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.