Quadro P4200 vs UHD Graphics 605
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 605 with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms Graphics 605 by a whopping 2039% 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 | 1128 | 266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 16.65 | 17.81 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Gemini Lake GT1.5 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 December 2017 (7 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 | 144 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 750 MHz | 1647 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.50 | 237.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.216 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 64 |
| TMUs | 18 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 864 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 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 size | no data | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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 | 12
−1983%
| 250−260
+1983%
|
| 1440p | 24
−1983%
| 500−550
+1983%
|
| 4K | 15
−1900%
| 300−350
+1900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4500%
|
90−95
+4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3750%
|
75−80
+3750%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−5750%
|
110−120
+5750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1243%
|
90−95
+1243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−7300%
|
70−75
+7300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−413%
|
160−170
+413%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−885%
|
250−260
+885%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−1629%
|
120−130
+1629%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4500%
|
90−95
+4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3750%
|
75−80
+3750%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−5750%
|
110−120
+5750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1243%
|
90−95
+1243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−7300%
|
70−75
+7300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−5100%
|
50−55
+5100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−413%
|
160−170
+413%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−1629%
|
120−130
+1629%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4500%
|
90−95
+4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3750%
|
75−80
+3750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1243%
|
90−95
+1243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−922%
|
90−95
+922%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−413%
|
160−170
+413%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−5750%
|
110−120
+5750%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−2300%
|
160−170
+2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−20100%
|
200−210
+20100%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−1667%
|
50−55
+1667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−5300%
|
50−55
+5300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1800%
|
35−40
+1800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2750%
|
55−60
+2750%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−214%
|
40−45
+214%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−2200%
|
130−140
+2200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 75−80 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
| 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%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 605 and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 1983% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4200 is 1983% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P4200 is 1900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 20100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 performs better in 43 tests (73%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.07 | 22.89 |
| Recency | 11 December 2017 | 21 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 100 Watt |
UHD Graphics 605 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1900% lower power consumption.
Quadro P4200, on the other hand, has a 2039.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 months.
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 605 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 605 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.
