Radeon RX 6600 XT vs Quadro K4200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4200 with Radeon RX 6600 XT, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K4200
2014, $855
4 GB GDDR5, 108 Watt
10.34

6600 XT outperforms K4200 by a whopping 280% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking492130
Place by popularitynot in top-10058
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.9548.57
Power efficiency7.4619.13
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGK104Navi 23
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2014 (12 years ago)30 July 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$854.99 $379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6600 XT has 5013% better value for money than Quadro K4200.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores13442048
Core clock speed771 MHz1968 MHz
Boost clock speed784 MHz2589 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt160 Watt
Texture fill rate87.81331.4
Floating-point processing power2.107 TFLOPS10.6 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs112128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L0 Cacheno data512 KB
L1 Cache112 KB512 KB
L2 Cache512 KB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data32 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length241 mm190 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.8 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA3.0-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

Quadro K4200 10.34
RX 6600 XT 39.30
+280%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro K4200 4328
Samples: 1378
RX 6600 XT 16444
+280%
Samples: 7138

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD30−35
−75.8%
124
1440p16−1868
+325%
4K10−1240
+300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p28.503.06
+89.3%
1440p53.445.57
+89.6%
4K85.509.48
+88.9%
  • RX 6600 XT has 89% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6600 XT has 90% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6600 XT has 89% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 120−130 120−130
Counter-Strike 2 210−220 210−220
Cyberpunk 2077 79 79

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 120−130 120−130
Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Counter-Strike 2 210−220 210−220
Cyberpunk 2077 78 78
Far Cry 5 151 151
Fortnite 170−180 170−180
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 150−160
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 150−160
Valorant 230−240 230−240

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 120−130 120−130
Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Counter-Strike 2 210−220 210−220
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 76 76
Dota 2 170 170
Far Cry 5 141 141
Far Cry 6 110 110
Fortnite 170−180 170−180
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 150−160
Grand Theft Auto V 135 135
Metro Exodus 95 95
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 150−160
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 176 176
Valorant 230−240 230−240

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Cyberpunk 2077 69 69
Dota 2 120 120
Far Cry 5 133 133
Forza Horizon 4 150−160 150−160
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 150−160
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 99 99
Valorant 230−240 230−240

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170−180 170−180

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 100−110 100−110
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 280−290 280−290
Far Cry 6 73 73
Grand Theft Auto V 68 68
Metro Exodus 56 56
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 270−280 270−280

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 100−110
Cyberpunk 2077 40 40
Far Cry 5 105 105
Forza Horizon 4 110−120 110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80 75−80

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 100−110 100−110

4K
High

Atomic Heart 30−35 30−35
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 45−50
Far Cry 6 21 21
Grand Theft Auto V 64 64
Metro Exodus 34 34
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54 54
Valorant 240−250 240−250

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65 60−65
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 14 14
Dota 2 86 86
Far Cry 5 51 51
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 75−80
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60 55−60

4K
Epic

Fortnite 50−55 50−55

This is how Quadro K4200 and RX 6600 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6600 XT is 313% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6600 XT is 325% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6600 XT is 300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.34 39.30
Recency 22 July 2014 30 July 2021
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 160 Watt

Quadro K4200 has 33% lower power consumption.

RX 6600 XT, on the other hand, has a 280% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 XT is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 194 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 5652 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K4200 or Radeon RX 6600 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.