Quadro NVS 295 vs Quadro K4200

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4200 and Quadro NVS 295, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K4200
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 108 Watt
11.22
+4575%

K4200 outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 4575% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4181363
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.17no data
Power efficiency7.240.73
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGK104G98
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)7 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$854.99 $54.50

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 cores13448
Core clock speed771 MHz540 MHz
Boost clock speed784 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate87.814.320
Floating-point processing power2.107 TFLOPS0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs1128

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length241 mm168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHz695 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s11.12 GB/s

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 DisplayPort2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA3.01.1

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.

Quadro K4200 11.22
+4575%
NVS 295 0.24

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 4328
+4554%
NVS 295 93

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.22 0.24
Recency 22 July 2014 7 May 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 23 Watt

Quadro K4200 has a 4575% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 295, on the other hand, has 369.6% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 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 K4200
Quadro K4200
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295
Quadro NVS 295

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.


3.7 156 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 17 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 295 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.