Quadro P4200 vs Tesla K8

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
K2 K220Q K240Q K260Q K280Q K500 K520 K560Q Quadro K4200 Quadro K5000 Tesla K8 Tesla K10
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
P3000 Mobile P3200 P3200 Max-Q P4000 Mobile P4000 Max-Q P4200 P4200 Max-Q P5000 Mobile P5000 X2 Mobile P5200 P5200 Max-Q Tesla P6 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla K8 with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.

Tesla K8
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
9.09

P4200 outperforms K8 by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Tesla K8 Tesla K8
Quadro P4200 Quadro P4200

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking515267
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.9817.80
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date16 September 2014 (11 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 cores15362304
Core clock speed693 MHz1227 MHz
Boost clock speed811 MHz1647 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate103.8237.2
Floating-point processing power2.491 TFLOPS7.589 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs128144
L1 Cache128 KB864 KB
L2 Cache512 KB2 MB

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
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 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 amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s192.3 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA3.06.1

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

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 9.09 23.18
Recency 16 September 2014 21 February 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm

Quadro P4200 has a 155% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tesla K8 in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla K8 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation one.

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.

NVIDIA Tesla K8
Tesla K8
NVIDIA Quadro P4200
Quadro P4200
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Tesla K8 Tesla K8
vs
FirePro D300 FirePro D300
Quadro P4200 Quadro P4200
vs
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000 Mobile
Tesla K8 Tesla K8
vs
Tesla M2090 Tesla M2090
Tesla K80m Tesla K80m
vs
Pro WX 8100 8100
Tesla K80m Tesla K80m
vs
Pro WX 4200 4200
Tesla K80m Tesla K80m
vs
Pro WX 8200 8200
Tesla K8 Tesla K8
vs
HD 7850 7850
Tesla K8 Tesla K8
vs
GT 750M Mac Edition 750M Mac Edition
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
S10000 Passive 12GB S10000 Passive 12GB
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
8800 GT Mac Edition 8800 GT Mac Edition
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
Instinct MI25 MI25
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
Pro V340 V340
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
Pro V320 MxGPU V320 MxGPU

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

1 3 votes

Rate Tesla K8 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 81 votes

Rate Quadro P4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla K8 or Quadro P4200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.