Quadro P4200 vs Radeon R7 260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260 with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.

R7 260
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.52

P4200 outperforms R7 260 by a whopping 236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking532216
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.71no data
Power efficiency5.4517.37
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameBonaireGP104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date17 December 2013 (11 years ago)21 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data

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 cores7682304
Core clock speedno data1227 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz1647 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate48.00237.2
Floating-point processing power1.536 TFLOPS7.589 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs48144

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 GB/s192.3 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan-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. 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.

R7 260 7.52
Quadro P4200 25.23
+236%

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.

R7 260 2891
Quadro P4200 10546
+265%

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

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Elden Ring 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Elden Ring 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
World of Tanks 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Elden Ring 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
World of Tanks 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Elden Ring 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.52 25.23
Recency 17 December 2013 21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro P4200 has a 235.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 15% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260 is a desktop card while Quadro P4200 is a mobile 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.


AMD Radeon R7 260
Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA Quadro P4200
Quadro P4200

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.


3.5 50 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 57 votes

Rate Quadro P4200 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.