Quadro K420 vs Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 (Carrizo) with Quadro K420, including specs and performance data.
R7 (Carrizo) outperforms K420 by a small 5% 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 | 963 | 975 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 3.99 | 3.24 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Carrizo | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $96.67 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 512 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 876 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-35 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 14.02 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.3364 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
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 | 160 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB/2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 29 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
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 data | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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 | 10
+11.1%
| 9−10
−11.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 10.74 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R7 (Carrizo) and Quadro K420 compete in popular games:
- R7 (Carrizo) is 11% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.82 | 1.73 |
| Recency | 4 June 2015 | 22 July 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 41 Watt |
R7 (Carrizo) has a 5.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and 241.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 (Carrizo) and Quadro K420.
Be aware that Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K420 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.
