GeForce RTX 5050 vs Quadro K4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4200 with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms K4200 by a whopping 308% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 466 | 101 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.92 | 100.00 |
| Power efficiency | 7.29 | 24.69 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $854.99 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 5050 has 10770% better value for money than Quadro K4200.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1344 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 771 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 784 MHz | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 87.81 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.107 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1350 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.34 | 42.14 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 130 Watt |
Quadro K4200 has 20.4% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 307.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 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.
