NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 are two professional workstation cards from different architectural generations. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them, with the newer M2000 consistently outperforming the older K4200 in the available benchmark suite. This analysis walks through the measured results, architectural differences, and practical implications based solely on the database entries.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two benchmark comparisons between these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 takes the win. The margin is substantial in each case, indicating a generational leap rather than a marginal improvement.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the M2000 scores 14,588 points against the K4200’s 12,313 points. That is a delta of 18.5% in favor of the M2000. This is a significant gap for compute-oriented workloads, which often rely heavily on OpenCL performance. The M2000’s lead here suggests it handles general-purpose GPU compute tasks with considerably more efficiency.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the M2000 scores 14,475 points, while the K4200 manages 12,482 points. The delta is 16% in favor of the M2000. Vulkan is a modern graphics API, and the M2000’s advantage here points to better support for current rendering pipelines. The K4200, with its older architecture, trails by a noticeable margin.

The head-to-head results give the M2000 a 2-0 win record. The K4200 does not win a single benchmark in the comparison. This is a decisive outcome, but the underlying reasons become clearer when examining the architecture and specification differences.

Looking at the broader context, the M2000’s average benchmark score is 14,532, placing it at the 56th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The K4200’s average is 12,398, which puts it at the 52nd percentile. The percentile difference is modest, but the raw score gap is substantial. The M2000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404, 0.9% behind), the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385, 1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373, 1.1% behind). It also sits just ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14,692, which is 1.1% faster). The K4200, by contrast, trails the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, 1.8% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, 2.5% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773, 2.9% faster). It does lead the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (11,998, 3.3% behind). These rival positions show that the M2000 competes in a higher performance tier than the K4200.

Where Each One Wins

The data gives the M2000 a clean sweep, but it is worth breaking down what each benchmark victory means for real-world usage.

For compute-heavy tasks, the M2000 is the clear choice. The OpenCL score of 14,588 versus 12,313 translates to an 18.5% advantage. OpenCL is widely used in scientific simulation, image processing, and data analysis. The M2000’s architecture appears better suited to these workloads, delivering a higher throughput that can reduce processing times noticeably.

For graphics workloads using Vulkan, the M2000 also wins, with a 16% lead. Vulkan is increasingly common in professional visualization, CAD viewport rendering, and real-time ray tracing previews. The M2000’s higher Vulkan score suggests it can handle modern graphics APIs with greater fluidity, which matters for interactive workflows where frame rates directly affect user experience.

The K4200 does not have a single benchmark win in this comparison. Its strengths, if any, are not captured by the recorded tests. The data shows it trailing in both OpenCL and Vulkan, meaning it would be the slower option for both compute and modern graphics tasks. However, the K4200 is not without merit in other areas, which the architecture section will clarify.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures, and the datasheet reveals why the M2000 wins. The M2000 uses the GM206 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The K4200 uses the GK104 chip, based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but that is where the similarities end.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The K4200 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the M2000 has 2,940 million transistors on a smaller 228 mm² die. This gives the M2000 a higher transistor density of 12.9 million per mm², compared to the K4200’s 12.0 million per mm². Maxwell’s design is more efficient per transistor, which explains how a smaller chip can outperform a larger one.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The M2000 has a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost clock of 1,163 MHz. The K4200 runs at a base of 771 MHz and a boost of only 784 MHz. The M2000’s boost clock is nearly 50% higher, which directly contributes to its compute and graphics performance. The memory clock also favors the M2000: 1,653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective transfer, versus the K4200’s 1,350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is another differentiator. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the bus widths differ. The M2000 uses a 128-bit bus, while the K4200 uses a 256-bit bus. This gives the K4200 a higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s versus the M2000’s 105.8 GB/s. However, the M2000’s higher clocks and newer architecture compensate for the narrower bus in the recorded benchmarks.

The shading units and texture units are also different. The M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K4200 has more raw hardware, but the M2000’s higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency win out. The pixel rate tells this story: the M2000 delivers 37.22 GPixel/s, while the K4200 manages 21.95 GPixel/s. The texture rate, however, favors the K4200: 87.81 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also close, with the K4200 at 2.107 TFLOPS and the M2000 at 1.786 TFLOPS. Despite the K4200’s theoretical FP32 advantage, the M2000 still wins the OpenCL benchmark, likely due to better driver optimization and architecture efficiency.

Power and connectivity also differ. The M2000 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, while the K4200 has a TDP of 108 W and needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the M2000 and 300 W for the K4200. The M2000 is also shorter at 201 mm, versus the K4200’s 241 mm length. Both are single-slot cards with 111 mm height. The M2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the M2000 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the K4200 has one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The API support shows the M2000 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is the faster card in every recorded benchmark. It wins OpenCL by 18.5% and Vulkan by 16%, making it the better choice for compute and modern graphics workloads. Its higher boost clock, newer Maxwell architecture, and more efficient design overcome the K4200’s larger transistor count and wider memory bus.

For users who run OpenCL-heavy applications, such as simulation or rendering, the M2000 offers a clear performance advantage that could reduce job times. For users who rely on Vulkan for viewport rendering or real-time visualization, the M2000 again comes out ahead. The K4200, with its higher texture rate and FP32 compute, might theoretically excel in specific texturing workloads, but the recorded benchmarks do not support that conclusion. No test in the database shows the K4200 winning.

The M2000 also has practical advantages. It draws less power, requires no external power connector, and is shorter in length. This makes it easier to install in a wider range of systems. The K4200’s need for a 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU could be a limitation in older or smaller workstations.

The K4200, released in July 2014, is from an older generation. The M2000, released in April 2016, is from a newer one. The production status is end-of-life for both, so neither is a current production part. But for anyone choosing between these two, the M2000 is the better performer. The percentile ranks (56th versus 52nd) confirm the M2000 sits higher in the overall GPU landscape.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14,532, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has an average of 12,398.

Q: By how much does the M2000 beat the K4200 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The M2000 scores 14,588 in OpenCL, while the K4200 scores 12,313, giving the M2000 an 18.5% lead.

Q: Does the K4200 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No, the K4200 wins zero benchmarks. The M2000 wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The K4200 has a higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s, while the M2000 has 105.8 GB/s. The K4200 uses a 256-bit bus, while the M2000 uses a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The M2000 boosts to 1,163 MHz, while the K4200 boosts to only 784 MHz.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The M2000 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, requires one 6-pin connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | GM206 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,940 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 228 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 796 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,163 MHz | 784 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) | 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 105.8 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1,344 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 48 | 112 |

| Raster Operations Units | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.22 GPixel/s | 21.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 55.82 GTexel/s | 87.81 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.786 TFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 108 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 201 mm (7.9 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | April 2016 | July 2014 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Quadro Maxwell |