NVIDIA Quadro K420 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K420 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 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 6 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 90% higher core clock speed: 876 MHz vs 460 MHz
- Around 90% higher texture fill rate: 14.02 GTexel / s vs 7.36 GTexel / s
- 6x more pipelines: 192 vs 32
- 5.7x better floating-point performance: 336.4 gflops vs 58.88 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 80 nm
- Around 2% lower typical power consumption: 41 Watt vs 42 Watt
- 2.2x more memory clock speed: 1782 MHz vs 800 MHz
- 3.5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 733 vs 208
- 8.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 288 vs 33
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 vs 12 September 2007 |
| Core clock speed | 876 MHz vs 460 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 14.02 GTexel / s vs 7.36 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 192 vs 32 |
| Floating-point performance | 336.4 gflops vs 58.88 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 80 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt vs 42 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 1782 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 733 vs 208 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 288 vs 33 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
- 512x more maximum memory size: 512 MB vs 1 GB / 2 GB
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1252 vs 1241
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1252 vs 1241
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Maximum memory size | 512 MB vs 1 GB / 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1252 vs 1241 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1252 vs 1241 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K420
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K420 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 733 | 208 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 288 | 33 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1843 | |
| 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 | 1252 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1245 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 598 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1241 | 1252 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K420 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
| Code name | GK107 | G84 |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 | 12 September 2007 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $96.67 | $699 |
| Place in performance rating | 1467 | 1639 |
| Price now | $89.99 | $89.99 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 10.27 | 2.77 |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 876 MHz | 460 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 336.4 gflops | 58.88 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Pipelines | 192 | 32 |
| Texture fill rate | 14.02 GTexel / s | 7.36 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt | 42 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 289 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | DVI-I DP, 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | 168 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB / 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1782 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory type | 128 Bit | DDR2 |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K420 with others
NVIDIAQuadro K420 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7050 + nForce 620i
NVIDIAQuadro K420 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6530D IGP
NVIDIAQuadro K420 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6370D IGP
NVIDIAQuadro K420 vs
NVIDIAQuadro 410
NVIDIAQuadro K420 vs
IntelHD Graphics 5300
NVIDIAQuadro K420 vs
AMDRadeon R6 M335DX
