NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4200

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 8 month(s) later
• Around 7% higher core clock speed: 771 MHz vs 720 MHz
• Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 108 Watt vs 122 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 5400 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 21% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4334 vs 3593
• Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 500 vs 440
• Around 1% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12321 vs 12225
• Around 30% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 33.016 vs 25.421
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.73 vs 2.31
• Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 70.194 vs 56.706
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6373 vs 5683
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6373 vs 5683

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX

• Around 5% higher texture fill rate: 92.2 billion / sec vs 87.81 GTexel / s
• Around 14% higher pipelines: 1536 vs 1344
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.434 vs 31.588
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3571 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3336 vs 3311
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3571 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3336 vs 3311

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	4334 3593
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	500 440
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12321 12225
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	33.016 25.421
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	736.063 734.936
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.73 2.31
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.588 35.434
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	70.194 56.706
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6373 5683
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3382 3571
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3311 3336
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6373 5683
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3382 3571
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3311 3336

Compare specifications (specs)