Radeon Pro W6800 vs Quadro P4200

Place in the ranking	217	51
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	25.16
Power efficiency	17.40	14.23
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GP104	Navi 21
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	21 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 cores	2304	3840
Core clock speed	1227 MHz	2075 MHz
Boost clock speed	1647 MHz	2320 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	237.2	556.8
Floating-point processing power	7.589 TFLOPS	17.82 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	96
TMUs	144	240
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	60

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 size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.3 GB/s	512.0 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 Connectors

No outputs

6x 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.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2
CUDA	6.1	-

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 25.23

Pro W6800 51.60
+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 10654

Pro W6800 19832
+86.1%

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 HD	75−80 −109%	157 +109%
1440p	55−60 −118%	120 +118%
4K	45−50 −107%	93 +107%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	14.32
1440p	no data	18.74
4K	no data	24.18

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 −147%	110−120 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 −124%	110−120 +124%

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 −124%	110−120 +124%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −154%	282 +154%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 −94%	130−140 +94%
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 −124%	110−120 +124%
Dota 2	85−90 −31%	114 +31%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 −94%	130−140 +94%
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 −124%	110−120 +124%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 −94%	130−140 +94%
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%
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	30−35 −90.3%	55−60 +90.3%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −125%	90−95 +125%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +5.5%	55 −5.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −166%	100−110 +166%
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%
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	9−10 −200%	27−30 +200%
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%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −152%	50−55 +152%
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 Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6800 is 223% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4200 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
Pro W6800 is ahead in 59 tests (92%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	25.23	51.60
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.