GeForce4 Ti 4200-8X vs Radeon Pro W5500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking233not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation45.00no data
Power efficiency13.88no data
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)Kelvin (2001−2003)
GPU code nameNavi 14NV28 A1
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date10 February 2020 (4 years ago)6 February 2002 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1408no data
Core clock speed1187 MHz250 MHz
Boost clock speed1400 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,400 million36 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Wattno data
Texture fill rate123.22.000
Floating-point processing power3.942 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs888

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 4.0 x8AGP 8x
Length267 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6SDR
Maximum RAM amount8 GB64 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth224.0 GB/s4 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)8.1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.61.3
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 February 2020 6 February 2002
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 7 nm 150 nm

Pro W5500 has an age advantage of 18 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2042.9% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon Pro W5500 and GeForce4 Ti 4200-8X. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon Pro W5500 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce4 Ti 4200-8X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro W5500
Radeon Pro W5500
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200-8X
GeForce4 Ti 4200-8X

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.2 74 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W5500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 15 votes

Rate GeForce4 Ti 4200-8X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.