NVS 4200M vs Quadro K4100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4100M and NVS 4200M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K4100M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.15
+853%

K4100M outperforms NVS 4200M by a whopping 853% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5461158
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.51no data
Power efficiency4.902.06
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF119
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores115248
Core clock speed706 MHz810 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate67.786.480
Floating-point processing power1.627 TFLOPS0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs968

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/s12.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+2.1

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. 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.

K4100M 7.15
+853%
NVS 4200M 0.75

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.

K4100M 2755
+857%
NVS 4200M 288

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

K4100M 4957
+878%
NVS 4200M 507

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

K4100M 19909
+766%
NVS 4200M 2298

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.

K4100M 8855
+667%
NVS 4200M 1155

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 HD48
+269%
13
−269%
4K13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p31.23no data
4K115.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Battlefield 5 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1075%
4−5
−1075%
Hitman 3 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+282%
10−12
−282%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+74.2%
30−35
−74.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Battlefield 5 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1075%
4−5
−1075%
Hitman 3 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+282%
10−12
−282%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 67
+570%
10−11
−570%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+74.2%
30−35
−74.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1075%
4−5
−1075%
Hitman 3 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+282%
10−12
−282%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+74.2%
30−35
−74.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Hitman 3 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+2150%
2−3
−2150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

This is how K4100M and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:

  • K4100M is 269% faster in 1080p
  • K4100M is 1200% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K4100M is 2150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, K4100M surpassed NVS 4200M in all 35 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.15 0.75
Recency 23 July 2013 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 25 Watt

K4100M has a 853.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 4200M, on the other hand, has 300% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4100M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Quadro K4100M
Quadro K4100M
NVIDIA NVS 4200M
NVS 4200M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


4.2 91 vote

Rate Quadro K4100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 146 votes

Rate NVS 4200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.