Quadro K4200 vs Tesla K20Xm
Quadro K4200
Popular choices:
Tesla K20Xm
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 K20Xm
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Tesla K20Xm is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K4200.
| Insight | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 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 $7,699), it costs 99% less, resulting in a 15049.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+15049.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($7,699) |
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 K20Xm
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 K20Xm
The Tesla K20Xm is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 12 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 732 MHz. It has 2688 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 235W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,403 points. Launch price was $7,699.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K4200 scores 4,332 and the Tesla K20Xm reaches 4,403 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K4200 is built on Kepler while the Tesla K20Xm uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,344 (Quadro K4200) vs 2,688 (Tesla K20Xm). Raw compute: 2.107 TFLOPS (Quadro K4200) vs 3.935 TFLOPS (Tesla K20Xm).
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,332 | 4,403+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1344 | 2688+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.107 TFLOPS | 3.935 TFLOPS+87% |
| ROPs | 32 | 48+50% |
| TMUs | 112 | 224+100% |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 224 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1.5 MB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K20Xm has 6 GB. The Tesla K20Xm offers 50% 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 1.5 MB (Tesla K20Xm) — the Tesla K20Xm has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1.5 MB+200% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K4200 draws 108W versus the Tesla K20Xm's 235W — a 74.1% difference. The Quadro K4200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K4200) vs 350W (Tesla K20Xm). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 108W-54% | 235W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 40.1+114% | 18.7 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K4200 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Tesla K20Xm launched at $7699. The Quadro K4200 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro K4200 | Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $7699 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | — |
| Codename | GK104 | GK110 |
| Release | July 22 2014 | November 12 2012 |
| Ranking | #475 | #473 |
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 K20Xm
