Quadro P4200 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 1060

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. The Quadro P4200 Max-Q is positioned at rank #12 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Excellent cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro P4200 Max-Q

#1

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

208%

#12

Quadro P4200 Max-Q

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#26

RTX A400

MSRP: $135|Avg: $135

63%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Quadro P4200 Max-Q uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro P4200 Max-Q likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1060 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 29% 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 P4200 Max-Q.

Insight	Quadro P4200 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1060
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-29%)	✅Leading raw performance (+29%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021))
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

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1060 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

Quadro P4200 Max-Q Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1060 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro P4200 Max-Q and GeForce GTX 1060

Quadro P4200 Max-Q

The Quadro P4200 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1215 MHz to 1480 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,800 points.

GeForce GTX 1060

The GeForce GTX 1060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,064 points. Launch price was $599.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Quadro P4200 Max-Q scores 7,800 versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 10,064 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 29%. The Quadro P4200 Max-Q is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1060 uses Pascal, both on a 16 nm process. Shader units: 2,304 (Quadro P4200 Max-Q) vs 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060). Raw compute: 6.82 TFLOPS (Quadro P4200 Max-Q) vs 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060). Boost clocks: 1480 MHz vs 1733 MHz.

Feature	Quadro P4200 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1060
G3D Mark Score	7,800	10,064+29%
Architecture	Pascal	Pascal
Process Node	16 nm	16 nm
Shading Units	2304	2560+11%
Compute (TFLOPS)	6.82 TFLOPS	8.873 TFLOPS+30%
Boost Clock	1480 MHz	1733 MHz+17%
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	144	160+11%
L1 Cache	864 KB	960 KB+11%
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro P4200 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1060
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Quadro P4200 Max-Q comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1060 has 6 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 192-bit.

Feature	Quadro P4200 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1060
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	6 GB+50%
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit+33%	192-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB	2 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro P4200 Max-Q) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1060). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	Quadro P4200 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1060
DirectX	12.1	12
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
OpenGL	4.6+2%	4.5
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 6.0 (Quadro P4200 Max-Q) vs NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP8 vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P4200 Max-Q) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060).

Feature	Quadro P4200 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1060
Encoder	NVENC 6.0	NVENC (Pascal)
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP8	NVDEC (Pascal)
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9	H.264,H.265/HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro P4200 Max-Q draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 180W — a 57.1% difference. The Quadro P4200 Max-Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro P4200 Max-Q) vs 400W (GeForce GTX 1060). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 6-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 173mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.