Quadro P4200 vs Quadro K4100M

Place in the ranking	548	216
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.52	no data
Power efficiency	4.94	17.37
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GK104	GP104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	21 February 2018 (6 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 cores	1152	2304
Core clock speed	706 MHz	1227 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1647 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.78	237.2
Floating-point processing power	1.627 TFLOPS	7.589 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	96	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
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	102.4 GB/s	192.3 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no 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.

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
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. 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 7.17

Quadro P4200 25.23
+252%

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

Quadro P4200 10546
+283%

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 8833

Quadro P4200 38375
+334%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

K4100M 6821

Quadro P4200 37676
+452%

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 −233%	160−170 +233%
4K	13 −246%	45−50 +246%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	31.23	no data
4K	115.31	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −213%	45−50 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −264%	50−55 +264%
Elden Ring	18−20 −337%	80−85 +337%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −235%	75−80 +235%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −213%	45−50 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −264%	50−55 +264%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −283%	110−120 +283%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −247%	65−70 +247%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −175%	55−60 +175%
Valorant	21−24 −339%	100−110 +339%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −235%	75−80 +235%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −213%	45−50 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −264%	50−55 +264%
Dota 2	24−27 −248%	85−90 +248%
Elden Ring	18−20 −337%	80−85 +337%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −141%	75−80 +141%
Fortnite	40−45 −200%	120−130 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −283%	110−120 +283%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −244%	85−90 +244%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −247%	65−70 +247%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −172%	150−160 +172%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −175%	55−60 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −273%	80−85 +273%
Valorant	21−24 −339%	100−110 +339%
World of Tanks	110−120 −135%	250−260 +135%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −235%	75−80 +235%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −213%	45−50 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −264%	50−55 +264%
Dota 2	24−27 −248%	85−90 +248%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −141%	75−80 +141%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −283%	110−120 +283%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −172%	150−160 +172%
Valorant	21−24 −339%	100−110 +339%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7−8 −500%	40−45 +500%
Elden Ring	9−10 −400%	45−50 +400%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 −438%	40−45 +438%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −349%	170−180 +349%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −283%	21−24 +283%
World of Tanks	50−55 −221%	160−170 +221%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −292%	50−55 +292%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −120%	21−24 +120%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −320%	21−24 +320%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −393%	70−75 +393%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −415%	65−70 +415%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −427%	55−60 +427%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −363%	35−40 +363%
Valorant	18−20 −278%	65−70 +278%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −2200%	21−24 +2200%
Dota 2	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Elden Ring	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −267%	75−80 +267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −333%	24−27 +333%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −2200%	21−24 +2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Dota 2	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −313%	30−35 +313%
Fortnite	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Valorant	7−8 −371%	30−35 +371%

This is how K4100M and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4200 is 233% faster in 1080p
Quadro P4200 is 246% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 2200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed K4100M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.17	25.23
Recency	23 July 2013	21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm

Quadro P4200 has a 251.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4100M in performance tests.

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