NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 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) 11 month(s) later
• Around 9% higher core clock speed: 771 MHz vs 706 MHz
• Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 108 Watt vs 122 Watt
• Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4324 vs 3992
• Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 503 vs 432
• Around 6% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12186 vs 11460
• Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 33.016 vs 31.318
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 736.063 vs 681.141
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 70.194 vs 67.311
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6373 vs 6288
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6373 vs 6288

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K5000

• Around 3% higher texture fill rate: 90.37 GTexel / s vs 87.81 GTexel / s
• Around 14% higher pipelines: 1536 vs 1344
• Around 3% better floating-point performance: 2,169 gflops vs 2,107 gflops
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.062 vs 2.73
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 32.922 vs 31.588
• Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3680 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 3311
• Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3680 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 3311

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K5000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	4324 3992
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	503 432
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12186 11460
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	33.016 31.318
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	736.063 681.141
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.73 3.062
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.588 32.922
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	70.194 67.311
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6373 6288
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3382 3680
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3311 3352
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6373 6288
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3382 3680
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3311 3352

Compare specifications (specs)