Quadro P4200 vs Quadro M1000M

Place in the ranking	540	219
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.25	no data
Power efficiency	12.73	17.37
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GM107	GP104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$200.89	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	512	2304
Core clock speed	993 MHz	1227 MHz
Boost clock speed	1072 MHz	1647 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.78	237.2
Floating-point processing power	1.017 TFLOPS	7.589 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	32	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-A (3.0)	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	2 GB/4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 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	5.0	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.

M1000M 7.30

Quadro P4200 24.91
+241%

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.

M1000M 2842

Quadro P4200 10654
+275%

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.

M1000M 8565

Quadro P4200 38375
+348%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

M1000M 8471

Quadro P4200 37676
+345%

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	39 −233%	130−140 +233%
4K	16 −213%	50−55 +213%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.15	no data
4K	12.56	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −240%	50−55 +240%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −221%	75−80 +221%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −240%	50−55 +240%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −270%	110−120 +270%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 −294%	65−70 +294%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −247%	65−70 +247%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
Valorant	24−27 −288%	100−110 +288%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −221%	75−80 +221%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −240%	50−55 +240%
Dota 2	24−27 −235%	85−90 +235%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −141%	75−80 +141%
Fortnite	40−45 −186%	120−130 +186%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −270%	110−120 +270%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 −294%	65−70 +294%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −231%	85−90 +231%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −247%	65−70 +247%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −163%	150−160 +163%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −257%	80−85 +257%
Valorant	24−27 −288%	100−110 +288%
World of Tanks	110−120 −129%	250−260 +129%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −221%	75−80 +221%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −236%	45−50 +236%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −240%	50−55 +240%
Dota 2	24−27 −235%	85−90 +235%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −141%	75−80 +141%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −270%	110−120 +270%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 −294%	65−70 +294%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −163%	150−160 +163%
Valorant	24−27 −288%	100−110 +288%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 −425%	40−45 +425%
Grand Theft Auto V	9−10 −378%	40−45 +378%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −349%	170−180 +349%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −283%	21−24 +283%
World of Tanks	50−55 −215%	160−170 +215%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −292%	50−55 +292%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −393%	70−75 +393%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −347%	65−70 +347%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 −264%	40−45 +264%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −427%	55−60 +427%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −280%	35−40 +280%
Valorant	18−20 −258%	65−70 +258%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Dota 2	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
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	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Dota 2	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −278%	30−35 +278%
Fortnite	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −388%	35−40 +388%
Forza Horizon 5	5−6 −320%	21−24 +320%
Valorant	7−8 −371%	30−35 +371%

This is how M1000M and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4200 is 233% faster in 1080p
Quadro P4200 is 213% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 533% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P4200 surpassed M1000M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.30	24.91
Recency	18 August 2015	21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB/4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	100 Watt

M1000M has 150% lower power consumption.

Quadro P4200, on the other hand, has a 241.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.

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