Quadro P4200 vs Radeon Pro WX 4150

Place in performance ranking	534	198
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.46	7.57
Architecture	Polaris (2016−2019)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Polaris 11	GP104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 March 2017 (7 years ago)	7 May 2018 (6 years ago)
Current price	$2000	$1526

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P4200 has 1546% better value for money than Pro WX 4150.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	896	2304
Core clock speed	no data	1215 MHz
Boost clock speed	1053 MHz	1480 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	115 Watt
Texture fill rate	58.97	237.2

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon Pro WX 4150 and Quadro P4200 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	7000 MHz	7132 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	192.3 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

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	no data
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	no data	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Pro WX 4150 6.53

Quadro P4200 25.06
+284%

Quadro P4200 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 4150 by 284% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Pro WX 4150 2528

Quadro P4200 10663
+322%

Quadro P4200 outperforms Radeon Pro WX 4150 by 322% in Passmark.

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

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

−310%

40−45
+310%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −277%	45−50 +277%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −450%	40−45 +450%
Battlefield 5	21−24 −286%	80−85 +286%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −247%	65−70 +247%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −310%	40−45 +310%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −340%	65−70 +340%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −313%	65−70 +313%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −277%	80−85 +277%
Hitman 3	14−16 −400%	75−80 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −315%	50−55 +315%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −242%	40−45 +242%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −267%	55−60 +267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 −380%	45−50 +380%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −277%	45−50 +277%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −450%	40−45 +450%
Battlefield 5	21−24 −286%	80−85 +286%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −247%	65−70 +247%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −310%	40−45 +310%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −340%	65−70 +340%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −313%	65−70 +313%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −277%	80−85 +277%
Hitman 3	14−16 −400%	75−80 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −315%	50−55 +315%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −367%	40−45 +367%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −242%	40−45 +242%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −267%	55−60 +267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −338%	55−60 +338%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 −380%	45−50 +380%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −277%	45−50 +277%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −450%	40−45 +450%
Battlefield 5	21−24 −286%	80−85 +286%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −310%	40−45 +310%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −340%	65−70 +340%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −313%	65−70 +313%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −277%	80−85 +277%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −338%	55−60 +338%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 −380%	45−50 +380%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −290%	35−40 +290%
Hitman 3	10−11 −320%	40−45 +320%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −175%	30−35 +175%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −400%	24−27 +400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −267%	30−35 +267%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2400%	24−27 +2400%
Battlefield 5	6−7 −833%	55−60 +833%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −330%	40−45 +330%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −500%	45−50 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −410%	50−55 +410%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −850%	18−20 +850%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Hitman 3	6−7 −300%	24−27 +300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −100%	16−18 +100%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −1400%	14−16 +1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −333%	12−14 +333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Battlefield 5	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −200%	24−27 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%

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

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 2400% faster than the Pro WX 4150.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed Pro WX 4150 in all 68 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.53	25.06
Recency	1 March 2017	7 May 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	115 Watt