AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the AMD FirePro W4300: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K4200 wins this test with a score of 12,313 against the FirePro W4300's 11,225, giving the NVIDIA card a 9.7% lead. This is a meaningful margin in compute workloads, placing the K4200 clearly ahead in raw OpenCL number crunching.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this gap. The K4200's average benchmark score sits at 12,398, while the W4300 averages 11,225. The K4200 falls just 1.8% short of the Tesla K20Xm (12,625) and 2.5% behind the Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710), while beating the GeForce GTX 960A by 3.3%. Meanwhile, the W4300 is effectively tied with the Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, 0.0% delta) and trails the GeForce GTX 780M by only 0.3%. The W4300 does edge out both the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which both score 11,088, giving the AMD card a 1.2% advantage over those parts.

In percentile terms, the K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the W4300 is at the 50th percentile. That two-point spread is small, but the benchmark delta tells the clearer story: the K4200 delivers roughly 10% more OpenCL performance. For tasks that rely on this API, the NVIDIA card is the stronger choice.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200, with an average score of 12,398 versus the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225. That is a 9.7% difference in the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: How does each card compare to its closest rivals?

A: The K4200 trails the Tesla K20Xm by 1.8% and the RX 7600M XT by 2.5%, but beats the GTX 670 by 2.9% and the GTX 960A by 3.3%. The W4300 is tied with the Radeon Pro WX 3200, trails the GTX 780M by 0.3%, and leads both RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q cards by 1.2%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K4200 has a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the W4300 uses a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card offers nearly 80% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, compared to 768 on the FirePro W4300. The K4200 also has 112 texture units versus 48, and 32 ROPs versus 16.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The K4200 has a 108 W TDP and needs one 6-pin power connector, with a suggested 300 W PSU. The W4300 has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX?

A: The FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both have OpenGL 4.6, but the K4200 has Vulkan 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170 on the W4300.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies. The Quadro K4200 uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The FirePro W4300 uses AMD's GCN 2.0 architecture on the Bonaire chip, also 28 nm TSMC, but with 2,080 million transistors on a much smaller 160 mm² die, achieving 13.0M per mm². So the AMD chip is denser but has fewer total transistors.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The K4200 has explicit base and boost clocks of 771 MHz and 784 MHz, respectively. The W4300 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, leaving its core speed unspecified. Memory clocks also differ: the K4200 runs at 1,350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective, while the W4300 runs at 1,500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. Despite the faster memory clock on AMD, the K4200's wider 256-bit bus delivers 172.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s on the 128-bit W4300.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward NVIDIA. The K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 21.95 GPixel/s and texture rate of 87.81 GTexel/s on the K4200, against 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s on the W4300. FP32 performance is 2.107 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS for AMD, a 47% advantage for the K4200.

Bus interface and display outputs also differ. The K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which gives the AMD card a newer interconnect. The K4200 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the W4300 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. API support shows the W4300 with DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0) on the K4200, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Quadro K4200 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, and its compute resources are substantially larger across every measured category: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. The 9.7% OpenCL lead is consistent with those hardware advantages. If the workload is OpenCL-heavy, the K4200 is the safer pick.

However, the W4300 is not without merit. Its 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it far easier to install in compact or power-constrained systems. The 171 mm length and 69 mm height are significantly smaller than the K4200's 241 mm length and 111 mm height. It also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, a newer bus standard, and offers four mini-DisplayPort outputs versus two on the K4200. For multi-display setups or low-profile builds, the AMD card has practical advantages.

The K4200 also sits higher in the overall GPU percentile ranking at 52 versus 50 for the W4300. Its nearest rivals include higher-end parts like the Tesla K20Xm and RX 7600M XT, while the W4300's rivals are closer to its own performance level. The K4200's 12,398 average score places it in a stronger performance class. For raw compute, choose the K4200. For efficiency and flexibility, the W4300 is the better fit.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | AMD FirePro W4300 |

|-------|---------------------|-------------------|

| Chip | GK104 | Bonaire |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 784 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz, 5.4 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1344 | 768 |

| TMUs | 112 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.95 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 87.81 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.107 TFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 108 W | 50 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 171 mm (6.7 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4200 wins in every compute metric recorded. It has more than double the texture units and ROPs, nearly double the shading units, and a 47% higher FP32 rate. Its memory bandwidth advantage, 172.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, is decisive for bandwidth-bound OpenCL tasks. The 9.7% head-to-head victory confirms this in practice. Any workload that stresses parallel compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing in OpenCL, favors the K4200.

The FirePro W4300 wins in physical and power efficiency. At 50 W TDP, it uses less than half the power of the K4200's 108 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connector. Its 171 mm length and 69 mm height make it compatible with smaller chassis and low-profile brackets. The four mini-DisplayPort outputs exceed the K4200's two DisplayPort plus one DVI, so multi-monitor professional setups benefit from the AMD card. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is a generation newer, which can matter for systems that rely on the latest bus. The W4300 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a more complete feature level than the K4200's 12 (11_0).

The choice comes down to priorities. For maximum compute throughput in a standard workstation, the K4200 is the stronger card. For a compact, low-power, multi-display workstation where the compute gap is acceptable, the W4300 is the practical option. The benchmark data does not show the W4300 winning any test, but its efficiency and connectivity profile give it a distinct role in the database.