NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a clear but narrow picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M claims victory in both shared benchmark tests, yet the margins are surprisingly slim given the architectural differences. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 780M scores 12,769 against the Quadro K4200's 12,313 — a 3.6% advantage. That gap narrows further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 780M posts 12,696 versus 12,482 for the Quadro, a mere 1.7% edge.

These results carry more weight when placed against each card's broader competitive landscape. The Quadro K4200's average benchmark score of 12,398 places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rivals clustered tightly around it. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm sits just 1.8% higher, the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT is 2.5% ahead, and the GeForce GTX 670 leads by 2.9%. Meanwhile, the GeForce GTX 960A trails the Quadro by 3.3%. This suggests the Quadro is operating in a dense field where small performance differences separate cards.

The GTX 780M, despite winning the head-to-head, occupies a slightly lower overall percentile at 50. Its average score of 11,261 is dragged down by a Geekbench Metal result of 8,319 — a test the Quadro does not have data for. When comparing only the shared tests, the GTX 780M's average in those two benchmarks would be roughly 12,733, which would place it more favorably. The nearest rivals for the GTX 780M tell an interesting story: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 matches it within 0.3%, the AMD FirePro W4300 is also 0.3% behind, and two NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants trail by 1.6% each.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head are worth scrutinizing. A 3.6% OpenCL gap and a 1.7% Vulkan gap are within the range of what could be considered run-to-run variance on modern drivers. Yet the fact that the GTX 780M wins both tests consistently hints at a genuine, if modest, performance advantage. The Quadro K4200's higher percentile ranking (52 vs 50) is somewhat paradoxical — it suggests the Quadro performs better relative to the broader GPU population, even though it loses to this specific competitor.

# Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental DNA: the GK104 chip, built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 3,540 million transistors packed into a 294 mm² die. The transistor density of 12.0M per mm² is identical. Both utilize Kepler architecture and support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The similarities end there, however, in ways that explain the benchmark outcomes.

The most striking divergence is in the compute core configuration. The GTX 780M packs 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, while the Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units and 112 TMUs. That is a 14.3% difference in shading units and a 14.3% difference in TMUs. The ROP count remains equal at 32 for both. This core advantage directly translates to the GTX 780M's higher theoretical throughput: 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro, a 16.2% gap. The GTX 780M also achieves higher pixel and texture rates at 25.50 GPixel/s and 102.0 GTexel/s, compared to 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. Both cards share a 771 MHz base clock, but the GTX 780M boosts to 797 MHz while the Quadro reaches only 784 MHz. That 13 MHz difference may seem trivial, but combined with the extra shading units, it compounds into the performance advantage seen in benchmarks. Memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 780M. This gives the Quadro a bandwidth edge of 172.8 GB/s over 160.0 GB/s on a 256-bit bus — yet the GTX 780M still wins overall.

The form factor and power delivery diverge significantly. The Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card with a 108 W TDP, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin connector. It measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The GTX 780M, by contrast, is an MXM module with no dedicated power connectors and a higher 122 W TDP. Its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented design, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

# FAQ

Q: Why does the GTX 780M win benchmarks despite having slower memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 780M compensates for its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth (versus 172.8 GB/s on the Quadro) with a more powerful compute core. It has 1,536 shading units and 128 TMUs compared to 1,344 and 112 respectively, plus a higher boost clock of 797 MHz versus 784 MHz. These factors contribute to its 16.2% higher FP32 throughput of 2.448 TFLOPS.

Q: Are these cards from the same generation?

A: No, they are separated by roughly a year in release timing. The GeForce GTX 780M was released on 2013-05-10, while the Quadro K4200 came later on 2014-07-21. The GTX 780M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, while the Quadro K4200 is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation.

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance on paper?

A: The GTX 780M dominates in theoretical metrics. It achieves 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro K4200. Its pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s and texture rate of 102.0 GTexel/s also exceed the Quadro's 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as indicated by null values for RT and tensor core counts.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest competitors?

A: The Quadro K4200's average score of 12,398 places it 1.8% behind the Tesla K20Xm and 2.9% behind the GeForce GTX 670, but 3.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 960A. The GTX 780M's average of 11,261 puts it within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and FirePro W4300, while leading the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q variants by 1.6%.

Q: What is the production status of these cards?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K4200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 780M's predecessor is GeForce 600M and its successor is GeForce 800M.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M |

|---|---|---|

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | GeForce 700M |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 784 MHz | 797 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,344 | 1,536 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.95 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 87.81 GTexel/s | 102.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.107 TFLOPS | 2.448 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 108 W | 122 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2013-05-10 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 600M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 800M |

# Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins decisively in compute-oriented workloads. Its 16.2% advantage in FP32 throughput, combined with higher pixel and texture rates, makes it the stronger choice for raw number-crunching tasks. The benchmark data confirms this: it leads in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests. For applications that leverage shading units heavily, the GTX 780M's 1,536 units versus 1,344 gives it a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot overcome.

The Quadro K4200, despite losing the head-to-head, wins in specific areas. Its memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s exceeds the GTX 780M's 160.0 GB/s by 8%, which could benefit memory-bound workloads. It also boasts a more conventional desktop form factor as a single-slot card with PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, versus the MXM-B (3.0) module design of the GTX 780M. The Quadro's display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) make it more suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups, while the GTX 780M's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

In terms of overall GPU population ranking, the Quadro K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile versus the GTX 780M's 50th. This suggests the Quadro performs better relative to the broader market, even though it loses to this specific rival. The Quadro also has a lower TDP at 108 W versus 122 W, which may matter in thermally constrained environments.

# The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion. If the choice is purely about benchmark performance, the GTX 780M is the clear winner — it takes both shared tests with margins of 3.6% in OpenCL and 1.7% in Vulkan. Its superior shading unit count, TMU count, and boost clock collectively deliver higher compute throughput that manifests in real benchmark results.

However, the Quadro K4200 should not be dismissed. Its higher memory bandwidth and lower power draw make it compelling for specific scenarios. The 172.8 GB/s bandwidth advantage could be decisive in memory-intensive professional applications, and the 108 W TDP versus 122 W suggests better thermal efficiency. The Quadro's higher percentile ranking (52 vs 50) indicates it performs better relative to the entire GPU landscape.

The choice ultimately depends on context. For users requiring a desktop workstation card with standard display outputs and PCIe interface, the Quadro K4200 offers a more conventional solution. For those needing maximum compute performance in a mobile or compact form factor, the GTX 780M's benchmark wins and higher theoretical throughput make it the data-driven choice. The GTX 780M wins 2-0 in head-to-head benchmarks, but the Quadro K4200's specific strengths in bandwidth and efficiency mean the "better" card depends entirely on the workload and environment.