NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 78% higher core clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 561 MHz
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 96 vs 72
- Around 19% better floating-point performance: 192 gflops vs 162 gflops
- Around 96% lower typical power consumption: 23 Watt vs 45 Watt
- Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 89 vs 70
- Around 87% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1731 vs 926
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2906 vs 1450
- Around 87% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1731 vs 926
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2906 vs 1450
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 3 September 2010 vs 15 June 2009 |
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 561 MHz |
Pipelines | 96 vs 72 |
Floating-point performance | 192 gflops vs 162 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt vs 45 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 89 vs 70 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 vs 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2906 vs 1450 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 vs 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2906 vs 1450 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
- 2.2x more texture fill rate: 13.46 GTexel / s vs 6.0 billion / sec
- 2x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 512 MB
- 2.8x more memory clock speed: 2200 MHz vs 800 MHz
- Around 18% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 467 vs 397
- 4.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 7043 vs 1583
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 13.46 GTexel / s vs 6.0 billion / sec |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 2200 MHz vs 800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 467 vs 397 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7043 vs 1583 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 397 | 467 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 89 | 70 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1583 | 7043 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.329 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.162 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.426 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.306 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 737 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 | 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2906 | 1450 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 737 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 | 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2906 | 1450 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GF108 | GT215 |
Launch date | 3 September 2010 | 15 June 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1509 | 1511 |
Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 561 MHz |
CUDA cores | 96 | |
Floating-point performance | 192 gflops | 162 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 96 | 72 |
Texture fill rate | 6.0 billion / sec | 13.46 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt | 45 Watt |
Transistor count | 585 million | 727 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 10.1 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB / s | 35.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2200 MHz |
Memory type | (G)DDR3 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA |