Quadro K420 vs TITAN V
Aggregate performance score
We've compared TITAN V with Quadro K420, including specs and performance data.
TITAN V outperforms K420 by a whopping 2253% 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 | 111 | 970 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.15 | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 12.55 | 3.25 |
| Architecture | Volta (2017−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GV100 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 December 2017 (7 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $96.67 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
TITAN V has 5088% better value for money than Quadro K420.
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 | 5120 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 21,100 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 465.6 | 14.02 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.9 TFLOPS | 0.3364 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 16 |
| TMUs | 320 | 16 |
| Tensor Cores | 640 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 7.5 MB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4.5 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 160 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | HBM2 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 1 GB/2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 3072 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 848 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 651.3 GB/s | Up to 29 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.0 | 3.0 |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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:
| 1440p | 152
+2433%
| 6−7
−2433%
|
| 4K | 82
+2633%
| 3−4
−2633%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1440p | 19.73
−22.5%
| 16.11
+22.5%
|
| 4K | 36.57
−13.5%
| 32.22
+13.5%
|
- Quadro K420 has 22% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Quadro K420 has 13% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.47 | 1.72 |
| Recency | 7 December 2017 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 1 GB/2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 41 Watt |
TITAN V has a 2252.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro K420, on the other hand, has 509.8% lower power consumption.
The TITAN V is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K420 in performance tests.
Be aware that TITAN V is a desktop 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.
