Quadro K4200 vs Radeon 840M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 840M with Quadro K4200, including specs and performance data.
K4200 outperforms 840M by a moderate 11% 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 | 483 | 461 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.89 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 7.26 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3+ (2024) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 June 2024 (1 year ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $854.99 |
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 | 256 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 771 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2900 MHz | 784 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 87.81 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.107 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7500 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 172.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 data | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 28.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
−7.1%
|
90−95
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 68
−10.3%
|
75−80
+10.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−9.9%
|
100−105
+9.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−6.4%
|
150−160
+6.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 32
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−9.9%
|
100−105
+9.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−4.2%
|
75−80
+4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−4.8%
|
110−120
+4.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−10%
|
55−60
+10%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 840M and Quadro K4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro K4200 is 7% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.05 | 10.03 |
| Recency | 2 June 2024 | 22 July 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
Radeon 840M has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro K4200, on the other hand, has a 10.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 840M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 840M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K4200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
