Quadro K4200 vs Radeon Pro W5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5500 and Quadro K4200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro W5500 outperforms K4200 by a whopping 106% 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 | 296 | 477 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.32 | 0.94 |
| Power efficiency | 13.11 | 7.36 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $854.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro W5500 has 1530% 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 | 1408 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 1187 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 784 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 123.2 | 87.81 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.942 TFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 88 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 112 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
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 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 172.8 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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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.
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 | 21.35 | 10.36 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 108 Watt |
Pro W5500 has a 106.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro K4200, on the other hand, has 15.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4200 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
