Quadro K4200 vs Tesla K20c
Quadro K4200
Popular choices:
Tesla K20c
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Tesla K20c
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla K20c is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K4200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K4200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K4200 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $500), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 877.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+877.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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 Quadro K4200 and Tesla K20c
Quadro K4200
The Quadro K4200 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: 4,332 points. Launch price was $854.99.
Tesla K20c
The Tesla K20c is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 12 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 706 MHz. It has 2496 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,432 points. Launch price was $3,199.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K4200 scores 4,332 and the Tesla K20c reaches 4,432 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K4200 is built on Kepler while the Tesla K20c uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,344 (Quadro K4200) vs 2,496 (Tesla K20c). Raw compute: 2.107 TFLOPS (Quadro K4200) vs 3.524 TFLOPS (Tesla K20c).
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,332 | 4,432+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1344 | 2496+86% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.107 TFLOPS | 3.524 TFLOPS+67% |
| ROPs | 32 | 40+25% |
| TMUs | 112 | 208+86% |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 208 KB+86% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1.25 MB+150% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro K4200 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Tesla K20c has 2 GB. The Quadro K4200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Quadro K4200) vs 1.25 MB (Tesla K20c) — the Tesla K20c has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1.25 MB+150% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_0 (Quadro K4200) vs 11_0 (Tesla K20c). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_0+9% | 11_0 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K4200 draws 108W versus the Tesla K20c's 225W — a 70.3% difference. The Quadro K4200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K4200) vs 350W (Tesla K20c). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 241mm vs 267mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 108W-52% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | 267mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 40.1+104% | 19.7 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K4200 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Tesla K20c launched at $3199 and now averages $500. The Quadro K4200 costs 90% less ($450 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 86.6 (Quadro K4200) vs 8.9 (Tesla K20c) — the Quadro K4200 offers 873% better value. The Quadro K4200 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20c |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $3199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-90% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 86.6+873% | 8.9 |
| Codename | GK104 | GK110 |
| Release | July 22 2014 | November 12 2012 |
| Ranking | #475 | #549 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K4200 and Tesla K20c
