Quadro P4200 vs RTX A1000
Quadro P4200
Popular choices:
RTX A1000
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 Quadro P4200
Performance Per Dollar RTX A1000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX A1000 is significantly newer (2024 vs 2018). The RTX A1000 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro P4200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RTX A1000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro P4200.
| Insight | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P4200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $110 versus $500 for the RTX A1000, it costs 78% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 336.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+336.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($110) | ⚠️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 P4200 and RTX A1000
Quadro P4200
The Quadro P4200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1647 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,376 points.
RTX A1000
The RTX A1000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1462 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 18 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,814 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P4200 scores 10,376 and the RTX A1000 reaches 10,814 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P4200 is built on Pascal while the RTX A1000 uses Ampere, both on 16 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 2,304 (Quadro P4200) vs 2,304 (RTX A1000). Raw compute: 7.589 TFLOPS (Quadro P4200) vs 6.737 TFLOPS (RTX A1000). Boost clocks: 1647 MHz vs 1462 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,376 | 10,814+4% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Ampere |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304 | 2304 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 7.589 TFLOPS+13% | 6.737 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1647 MHz+13% | 1462 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 144+100% | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 0.84 MB | 2.3 MB+174% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 8 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (Quadro P4200) vs 12.2 (RTX A1000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6th Gen (Quadro P4200) vs 7th Gen NVENC (RTX A1000). Decoder: NVDEC 3rd Gen vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.265,H.264,VP9 (Quadro P4200) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (RTX A1000).
| Feature | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6th Gen | 7th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | NVDEC 3rd Gen | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.265,H.264,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P4200 draws 100W versus the RTX A1000's 50W — a 66.7% difference. The RTX A1000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro P4200) vs 500W (RTX A1000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 105mm vs 163mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 50W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 105mm | 163mm |
| Height | 82mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 75°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 103.8 | 216.3+108% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P4200 launched at $1200 MSRP and currently averages $110, while the RTX A1000 launched at $749 and now averages $500. The Quadro P4200 costs 78% less ($390 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 94.3 (Quadro P4200) vs 21.6 (RTX A1000) — the Quadro P4200 offers 336.6% better value. The RTX A1000 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2018).
| Feature | Quadro P4200 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1200 | $749-38% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $110-78% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 94.3+337% | 21.6 |
| Codename | GP104 | GA107 |
| Release | February 21 2018 | April 16 2024 |
| Ranking | #266 | #251 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P4200 and RTX A1000
