Radeon RX 590 vs Quadro P4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4200 with Radeon RX 590, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms RX 590 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 257 | 273 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 71 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 19.01 |
| Power efficiency | 17.64 | 9.71 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Polaris 30 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 15 November 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 1469 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1647 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 237.2 | 222.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.589 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144 | 144 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 100−110
−2%
| 102
+2%
|
| 1440p | 60−65
+0%
| 60
+0%
|
| 4K | 35−40
−8.6%
| 38
+8.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.74 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.65 |
| 4K | no data | 7.34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+3.9%
|
120−130
−3.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4.1%
|
45−50
−4.1%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+4.2%
|
45−50
−4.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−41.5%
|
133
+41.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+3.9%
|
120−130
−3.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4.1%
|
45−50
−4.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
−10.4%
|
85
+10.4%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−18.8%
|
139
+18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
−27.7%
|
120
+27.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+2.8%
|
70−75
−2.8%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+4.2%
|
45−50
−4.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
−30.4%
|
120
+30.4%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−83.5%
|
301
+83.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−18.1%
|
111
+18.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+3.9%
|
120−130
−3.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+1.6%
|
250−260
−1.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4.1%
|
45−50
−4.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
110−120
−1.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
−2.6%
|
79
+2.6%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−17.9%
|
138
+17.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
−20.2%
|
113
+20.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+2.8%
|
70−75
−2.8%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+4.2%
|
45−50
−4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+8.9%
|
79
−8.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
−17.4%
|
108
+17.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
−25.7%
|
88
+25.7%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−75%
|
287
+75%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
−6.4%
|
100
+6.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4.1%
|
45−50
−4.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
110−120
−1.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+4.1%
|
74
−4.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+3.3%
|
91
−3.3%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+4.2%
|
45−50
−4.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+10.8%
|
83
−10.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+37.3%
|
51
−37.3%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+49.1%
|
110
−49.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+21.9%
|
96
−21.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+4.2%
|
45−50
−4.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+3.7%
|
160−170
−3.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+4.9%
|
40−45
−4.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180
−0.6%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
−14.9%
|
232
+14.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+3.1%
|
60−65
−3.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+3.8%
|
50−55
−3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+3.4%
|
55−60
−3.4%
|
| God of War | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+5.6%
|
35−40
−5.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+3.7%
|
50−55
−3.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+7.3%
|
41
−7.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+5.3%
|
19
−5.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+9.4%
|
32
−9.4%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+22.1%
|
113
−22.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+4%
|
75−80
−4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
46
+12.2%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−40%
|
35
+40%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−11.5%
|
29
+11.5%
|
This is how Quadro P4200 and RX 590 compete in popular games:
- RX 590 is 2% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
- RX 590 is 9% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 49% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 590 is 84% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 performs better in 44 tests (68%)
- RX 590 performs better in 19 tests (29%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.14 | 22.30 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 15 November 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 175 Watt |
Quadro P4200 has a 3.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 75% lower power consumption.
RX 590, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4200 and Radeon RX 590.
Be aware that Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 590 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
