Quadro P4200 vs Radeon R9 M295X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M295X with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms R9 M295X by an impressive 88% 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 | 427 | 257 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.75 | 17.65 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 November 2014 (10 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) |
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 | 2048 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1647 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 237.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 144 |
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 | large | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | Not Listed | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | Not Listed | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
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.
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 | 48
−87.5%
| 90−95
+87.5%
|
| 4K | 26
−73.1%
| 45−50
+73.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−94.2%
|
130−140
+94.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−96.2%
|
50−55
+96.2%
|
| God of War | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−70.9%
|
90−95
+70.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−94.2%
|
130−140
+94.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−96.2%
|
50−55
+96.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−87.8%
|
75−80
+87.8%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−60.3%
|
110−120
+60.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−77.4%
|
90−95
+77.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−89.7%
|
70−75
+89.7%
|
| God of War | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−104%
|
90−95
+104%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−50.5%
|
160−170
+50.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−70.9%
|
90−95
+70.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−94.2%
|
130−140
+94.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
−44.1%
|
250−260
+44.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−96.2%
|
50−55
+96.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
−45.8%
|
120−130
+45.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−87.8%
|
75−80
+87.8%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−60.3%
|
110−120
+60.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−77.4%
|
90−95
+77.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−89.7%
|
70−75
+89.7%
|
| God of War | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−83%
|
85−90
+83%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−104%
|
90−95
+104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
−89.2%
|
70−75
+89.2%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−50.5%
|
160−170
+50.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−70.9%
|
90−95
+70.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−96.2%
|
50−55
+96.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
−45.8%
|
120−130
+45.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−87.8%
|
75−80
+87.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−77.4%
|
90−95
+77.4%
|
| God of War | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−104%
|
90−95
+104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
−312%
|
70−75
+312%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−50.5%
|
160−170
+50.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
−60.3%
|
110−120
+60.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
−78.7%
|
160−170
+78.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−126%
|
40−45
+126%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−107%
|
30−35
+107%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−76.8%
|
170−180
+76.8%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−53%
|
200−210
+53%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−94.1%
|
65−70
+94.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−109%
|
21−24
+109%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−100%
|
27−30
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−111%
|
35−40
+111%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
−107%
|
55−60
+107%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−83.3%
|
40−45
+83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−150%
|
20−22
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−106%
|
130−140
+106%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−112%
|
35−40
+112%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−73.3%
|
75−80
+73.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−115%
|
27−30
+115%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−95.2%
|
40−45
+95.2%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
This is how R9 M295X and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 88% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4200 is 73% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 312% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed R9 M295X in all 65 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.29 | 23.14 |
| Recency | 23 November 2014 | 21 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro P4200 has a 88.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M295X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M295X is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
