NVIDIA Quadro K420 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K420 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM 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 - Video Composition (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 Quadro K420
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- Around 62% higher core clock speed: 876 MHz vs 540 MHz
- Around 8% higher texture fill rate: 14.02 GTexel / s vs 12.96 GTexel / s
- 2.7x more pipelines: 192 vs 72
- Around 79% better floating-point performance: 336.4 gflops vs 187.49 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 5% lower typical power consumption: 41 Watt vs 43 Watt
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1782 MHz vs 1580 MHz
- Around 61% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 741 vs 461
- 4.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 282 vs 62
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 22 July 2014 vs 2 February 2010 |
Core clock speed | 876 MHz vs 540 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 14.02 GTexel / s vs 12.96 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 192 vs 72 |
Floating-point performance | 336.4 gflops vs 187.49 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt vs 43 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 1782 MHz vs 1580 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 741 vs 461 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 282 vs 62 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM
- 1024x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 1 GB / 2 GB
- 4.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8132 vs 1847
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2502 vs 1241
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2502 vs 1241
Specifications (specs) | |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 1 GB / 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8132 vs 1847 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2502 vs 1241 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2502 vs 1241 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K420
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro K420 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 741 | 461 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 282 | 62 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1847 | 8132 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 6 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 186.605 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.433 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.365 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 17.75 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1245 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 598 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1241 | 2502 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1245 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 598 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1241 | 2502 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro K420 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GK107 | GT215 |
Launch date | 22 July 2014 | 2 February 2010 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $96.67 | |
Place in performance rating | 1476 | 1477 |
Price now | $89.99 | |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 10.27 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 876 MHz | 540 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 336.4 gflops | 187.49 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 192 | 72 |
Texture fill rate | 14.02 GTexel / s | 12.96 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt | 43 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 727 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | DVI-I DP, 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 160 mm | 175 mm |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 10.1 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Shader Model | 5 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB / 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1782 MHz | 1580 MHz |
Memory type | 128 Bit | GDDR3 |
Memory bandwidth | 25.28 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Desktop Management |