Quadro K4200 vs Radeon Pro WX 4100

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4100 and Quadro K4200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro WX 4100
2016
4 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
9.42

K4200 outperforms Pro WX 4100 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking471421
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.312.20
Power efficiency12.907.13
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameBaffinGK104
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date10 November 2016 (8 years ago)22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $854.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 4100 has 50% better value for money than Quadro K4200.

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 cores10241344
Core clock speed1125 MHz771 MHz
Boost clock speed1201 MHz784 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt108 Watt
Texture fill rate76.8687.81
Floating-point processing power2.46 TFLOPS2.107 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs64112

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 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1350 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s172.8 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 mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-3.0

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro WX 4100 9.42
Quadro K4200 11.24
+19.3%

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.

Pro WX 4100 3629
Quadro K4200 4331
+19.3%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro WX 4100 19113
+58.3%
Quadro K4200 12072

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro WX 4100 18563
+49.8%
Quadro K4200 12388

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 9.42 11.24
Recency 10 November 2016 22 July 2014
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 108 Watt

Pro WX 4100 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 116% lower power consumption.

Quadro K4200, on the other hand, has a 19.3% higher aggregate performance score.

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4100 in performance tests.


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 WX 4100
Radeon Pro WX 4100
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Quadro K4200

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.


3.6 48 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 160 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 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.