NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4200

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 85% lower typical power consumption: 108 Watt vs 200 Watt
• Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
• Around 8% higher memory clock speed: 5400 MHz vs 5000 MHz
• Around 54% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4340 vs 2817
• Around 33% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 498 vs 374
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6373 vs 4396
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6373 vs 4396

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

• Around 10% higher core clock speed: 850 MHz vs 771 MHz
• Around 18% higher boost clock speed: 925 MHz vs 784 MHz
• Around 18% higher texture fill rate: 103.6 GTexel / s vs 87.81 GTexel / s
• Around 33% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1344
• Around 57% better floating-point performance: 3,315 gflops vs 2,107 gflops
• Around 11% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13719 vs 12321
• Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.311 vs 33.016
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.334 vs 736.063
• Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.328 vs 2.73
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.205 vs 31.588
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 181.508 vs 70.194
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3705 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3348 vs 3311
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3705 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3348 vs 3311

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	4340 2817
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	498 374
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12321 13719
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	33.016 40.311
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	736.063 795.334
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.73 3.328
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.588 64.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	70.194 181.508
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6373 4396
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3382 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3311 3348
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6373 4396
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3382 3705
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3311 3348

Compare specifications (specs)