GeForce GTX 880M vs Quadro K4200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4200 with GeForce GTX 880M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K4200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 108 Watt
11.26
+13.1%

K4200 outperforms GTX 880M by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking420453
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.28no data
Power efficiency7.185.62
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK104
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)12 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$854.99 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 cores13441536
Core clock speed771 MHz954 MHz
Boost clock speed784 MHz993 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate87.81127.1
Floating-point processing power2.107 TFLOPS3.05 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs112128

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
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
SLI options-+

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 amount4 GB8 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHzUp to 2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s160.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA3.0+

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.

Quadro K4200 11.26
+13.1%
GTX 880M 9.96

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.

Quadro K4200 4327
+13%
GTX 880M 3829

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.

Quadro K4200 12062
GTX 880M 14879
+23.4%

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.

Quadro K4200 12383
GTX 880M 13675
+10.4%

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.

Quadro K4200 8946
GTX 880M 10249
+14.6%

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro K4200 40
GTX 880M 44
+10%

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:

900p150−160
+11.1%
135
−11.1%
Full HD60−65
+7.1%
56
−7.1%
4K27−30
+12.5%
24
−12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.25no data
4K31.67no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30
+0%
30
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38
+0%
38
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
World of Tanks 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Elden Ring 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how Quadro K4200 and GTX 880M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K4200 is 11% faster in 900p
  • Quadro K4200 is 7% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro K4200 is 13% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.26 9.96
Recency 22 July 2014 12 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 122 Watt

Quadro K4200 has a 13.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, and 13% lower power consumption.

GTX 880M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 880M is a notebook one.


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 K4200
Quadro K4200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M
GeForce GTX 880M

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 162 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 114 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 880M 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.