Quadro P4200 vs Radeon 530
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 530 with Quadro P4200, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms 530 by a whopping 849% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 810 | 211 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.67 | 17.40 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Weston | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
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 | 384 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 730 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1024 MHz | 1647 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.58 | 237.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7864 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | 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 | DDR3/GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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.
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.
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 | 15
−833%
| 140−150
+833%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1950%
|
80−85
+1950%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−480%
|
55−60
+480%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12
−450%
|
65−70
+450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
−317%
|
140−150
+317%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−452%
|
110−120
+452%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
−562%
|
85−90
+562%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 13
−400%
|
65−70
+400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18
−372%
|
85−90
+372%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−171%
|
100−110
+171%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1950%
|
80−85
+1950%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1060%
|
55−60
+1060%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 32
−356%
|
140−150
+356%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−452%
|
110−120
+452%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5
−1620%
|
85−90
+1620%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
−673%
|
85−90
+673%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−315%
|
50−55
+315%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−171%
|
100−110
+171%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1060%
|
55−60
+1060%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1023%
|
140−150
+1023%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−629%
|
50−55
+629%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−452%
|
110−120
+452%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
−673%
|
85−90
+673%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−800%
|
50−55
+800%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−171%
|
100−110
+171%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−983%
|
65−70
+983%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1100%
|
45−50
+1100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−850%
|
35−40
+850%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−643%
|
50−55
+643%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−847%
|
140−150
+847%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−600%
|
40−45
+600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 10−12 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Hitman 3 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 530 and Quadro P4200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is 833% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4200 is ahead in 57 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.65 | 25.14 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 100 Watt |
Radeon 530 has 100% lower power consumption.
Quadro P4200, on the other hand, has a 848.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 530 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 530 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
