Radeon Pro W6800 vs Quadro P4200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4200 with Radeon Pro W6800, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P4200
2018
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
25.22

Pro W6800 outperforms P4200 by a whopping 105% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking21551
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data24.60
Power efficiency17.4014.24
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGP104Navi 21
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date21 February 2018 (6 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,249

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 cores23043840
Core clock speed1227 MHz2075 MHz
Boost clock speed1647 MHz2320 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate237.2556.8
Floating-point processing power7.589 TFLOPS17.82 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs144240
Ray Tracing Coresno data60

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.3 GB/s512.0 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 outputs6x mini-DisplayPort

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 Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
CUDA6.1-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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 P4200 25.22
Pro W6800 51.58
+105%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

Quadro P4200 10543
Pro W6800 19832
+88.1%

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 HD75−80
−109%
157
+109%
1440p55−60
−118%
120
+118%
4K45−50
−107%
93
+107%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data14.32
1440pno data18.74
4Kno data24.18

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−147%
110−120
+147%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−125%
110−120
+125%
Elden Ring 80−85
−128%
180−190
+128%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
−50.6%
110−120
+50.6%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−147%
110−120
+147%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−125%
110−120
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−154%
282
+154%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+8.2%
61
−8.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
−74.5%
95−100
+74.5%
Valorant 100−110
−116%
210−220
+116%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
−50.6%
110−120
+50.6%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−147%
110−120
+147%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−125%
110−120
+125%
Dota 2 85−90
−31%
114
+31%
Elden Ring 80−85
−128%
180−190
+128%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+71.1%
45
−71.1%
Fortnite 120−130
−65.1%
200−210
+65.1%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−150%
277
+150%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
−40.7%
121
+40.7%
Metro Exodus 65−70
−75.8%
116
+75.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
−36.1%
210−220
+36.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
−74.5%
95−100
+74.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
−112%
170−180
+112%
Valorant 100−110
−116%
210−220
+116%
World of Tanks 250−260
−7.7%
270−280
+7.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
−50.6%
110−120
+50.6%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−147%
110−120
+147%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−125%
110−120
+125%
Dota 2 85−90
+1.2%
86
−1.2%
Far Cry 5 75−80
−42.9%
110−120
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−141%
268
+141%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
−36.1%
210−220
+36.1%
Valorant 100−110
−116%
210−220
+116%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 40−45
−110%
88
+110%
Elden Ring 45−50
−160%
110−120
+160%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
−105%
88
+105%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−143%
55−60
+143%
World of Tanks 160−170
−97.6%
300−350
+97.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
−64.7%
80−85
+64.7%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−168%
55−60
+168%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−181%
55−60
+181%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−115%
150−160
+115%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−216%
212
+216%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+5.5%
55
−5.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−173%
100−110
+173%
Valorant 65−70
−172%
180−190
+172%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−152%
55−60
+152%
Dota 2 40−45
−184%
125
+184%
Elden Ring 20−22
−190%
55−60
+190%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
−184%
125
+184%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−189%
55
+189%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
−130%
170−180
+130%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−184%
125
+184%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−146%
60−65
+146%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−152%
55−60
+152%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Dota 2 40−45
−114%
94
+114%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−156%
85−90
+156%
Fortnite 30−35
−168%
80−85
+168%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−223%
126
+223%
Valorant 30−35
−209%
100−110
+209%

This is how Quadro P4200 and Pro W6800 compete in popular games:

  • Pro W6800 is 109% faster in 1080p
  • Pro W6800 is 118% faster in 1440p
  • Pro W6800 is 107% faster in 4K

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

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 71% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6800 is 238% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P4200 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • Pro W6800 is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 25.22 51.58
Recency 21 February 2018 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 250 Watt

Quadro P4200 has 150% lower power consumption.

Pro W6800, on the other hand, has a 104.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Pro W6800 is a workstation 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 P4200
Quadro P4200
AMD Radeon Pro W6800
Radeon Pro W6800

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
3.9 83 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6800 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.