
GRID P4-1Q vs Quadro K420

GRID P4-1Q
Popular choices:

Quadro K420
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GRID P4-1Q is positioned at rank 413 and the Quadro K420 is on rank 220, so the Quadro K420 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID P4-1Q
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K420
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID P4-1Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K420 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GRID P4-1Q | Quadro K420 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K420 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K420 holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $185), it costs 89% less, resulting in a 819.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID P4-1Q | Quadro K420 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+819.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($185) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GRID P4-1Q and Quadro K420

GRID P4-1Q
The GRID P4-1Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 730 points.

Quadro K420
The Quadro K420 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 771 MHz to 784 MHz. It has 1344 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 108W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 726 points. Launch price was $854.99.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P4-1Q scores 730 and the Quadro K420 reaches 726 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P4-1Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Quadro K420 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID P4-1Q) vs 1,344 (Quadro K420). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID P4-1Q) vs 2.107 TFLOPS (Quadro K420). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 784 MHz.
| Feature | GRID P4-1Q | Quadro K420 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 730 | 726 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+52% | 1344 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.825 TFLOPS+129% | 2.107 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz+50% | 784 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+14% | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB+586% | 112 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P4-1Q | Quadro K420 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GRID P4-1Q comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro K420 has 1 GB. The Quadro K420 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GRID P4-1Q) vs 0.5 MB (Quadro K420) — the GRID P4-1Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID P4-1Q | Quadro K420 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P4-1Q draws 225W versus the Quadro K420's 108W — a 70.3% difference. The Quadro K420 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P4-1Q) vs 350W (Quadro K420). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID P4-1Q | Quadro K420 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 108W-52% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 3.2 | 6.7+109% |
Value Analysis
The GRID P4-1Q launched at $5890 MSRP and currently averages $185, while the Quadro K420 launched at $150 and now averages $20. The Quadro K420 costs 89.2% less ($165 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 3.9 (GRID P4-1Q) vs 36.3 (Quadro K420) — the Quadro K420 offers 830.8% better value. The GRID P4-1Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2014).
| Feature | GRID P4-1Q | Quadro K420 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5890 | $150-97% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $185 | $20-89% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.9 | 36.3+831% |
| Codename | GM204 | GK104 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | July 22 2014 |
| Ranking | #525 | #475 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











