Quadro K4200 vs Radeon R9 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Quadro K4200, including specs and performance data.
R9 280 outperforms K4200 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 363 | 418 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.26 | 2.10 |
| Power efficiency | 5.02 | 7.24 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 4 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $854.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 280 has 150% better value for money than Quadro K4200.
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 | 1792 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 771 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | 784 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 | 87.81 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.344 TFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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. 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.40 | 11.22 |
| Recency | 4 March 2014 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 108 Watt |
R9 280 has a 28.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro K4200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 85.2% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Quadro K4200 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
