GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 are both end-of-life workstation cards, but the benchmark data shows a clear overall winner. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 holds a decisive lead in the only shared benchmark, with an average benchmark score of 12,398 compared to the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225. While the FirePro W4300 is a more modern and efficient design, the K4200's raw compute advantage in OpenCL makes it the stronger performer in this direct comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12,313, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. This represents a delta of -8.8% for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro K4200 is approximately 9% faster in this test. This is a significant margin in a workstation context, as OpenCL performance is often a proxy for general compute workloads in professional applications.

The difference becomes even more pronounced when considering the broader benchmark picture. The Quadro K4200 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,482, which is higher than its own OpenCL score. The FirePro W4300 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the data, so the K4200's advantage in modern API support is clear. When averaging the K4200's two benchmark scores, it reaches 12,398, whereas the W4300's single score of 11,225 stands as its average. This puts the K4200 roughly 10.5% ahead on average.

Looking at the percentile rankings reinforces this result. The Quadro K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4300 is at the 50th percentile. While both are mid-pack performers, the K4200's higher percentile indicates it outpaces more of its peers. The nearest rival data confirms the W4300 is closely matched with cards like the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (deltaPct 0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (deltaPct -0.3%), while the K4200 sits in a slightly higher performance tier, with its nearest rivals including the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (deltaPct -1.8%) and AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (deltaPct -2.5%).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 12,313 versus the FirePro W4300's 11,225 demonstrates superior general-purpose compute capability. This advantage is backed by its hardware specifications: the K4200 has 1,344 shading units compared to the W4300's 768, and 112 texture mapping units versus 48. Its FP32 throughput is 2.107 TFLOPS, significantly higher than the W4300's 1,428.5 GFLOPS. The K4200 also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the W4300's 96.00 GB/s from its 128-bit bus.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on efficiency and modern architecture. It consumes only 50 W of power according to the TDP field, compared to the K4200's 108 W, and it does not require any power connectors while the K4200 needs a single 6-pin connector. The W4300 is also built on a newer architecture, GCN 2.0, versus the K4200's older Kepler design. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the K4200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The W4300 also has a more compact physical footprint at 171 mm in length versus the K4200's 241 mm.

It is also worth noting the W4300 has a transistor density advantage: 13.0 million transistors per square millimeter versus 12.0 million for the K4200. This indicates a more efficient use of silicon, even though the K4200's larger die (294 mm² versus 160 mm²) and higher transistor count (3,540 million versus 2,080 million) give it more raw resources to work with.

The Verdict

Data from the benchmarks indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the better choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 8.8% higher than the FirePro W4300, and its average benchmark score of 12,398 versus 11,225 makes it the faster card for general-purpose GPU workloads. The K4200 also has the advantage of a Vulkan benchmark score, suggesting it can handle modern graphics APIs more effectively. For professional applications that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration, the Quadro K4200 is the data-backed winner.

The AMD FirePro W4300 is the better choice for users who prioritize power efficiency and system integration. Its 50 W TDP is less than half of the K4200's 108 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connectors, making it easier to install in a wider range of systems. Its shorter length (171 mm versus 241 mm) and lower suggested PSU requirement (250 W versus 300 W) also make it more flexible for compact builds. Additionally, its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) gives it a forward-looking feature set that the K4200 lacks. However, the performance gap is significant enough that users with compute-heavy workloads should opt for the Quadro K4200 despite its higher power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12,313, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The K4200 is 8.8% faster in this test.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W4300 support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, it supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a lower feature level.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s, while the AMD FirePro W4300 has 96.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W.

Q: Which card is shorter in length?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 is 171 mm long, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is 241 mm long.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has an average benchmark score of 12,398, while the AMD FirePro W4300 has an average of 11,225.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is substantial. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip based on the GCN 2.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their transistor layouts differ significantly. The K4200's GK104 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the W4300's Bonaire has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. This gives the W4300 a higher transistor density of 13.0 million per mm², versus 12.0 million for the K4200.

The compute capabilities reflect these architectural differences. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K4200's pixel rate is 21.95 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 87.81 GTexel/s, compared to the W4300's 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

In terms of API support, the W4300 is more modern, supporting DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The K4200 also supports OpenGL 4.6 and has a slightly newer Vulkan version at 1.2.175, but its DirectX support is limited to 12 (11_0). The K4200 also has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 12,482, indicating better Vulkan performance, while the W4300 lacks any Vulkan benchmark data.

Specification Differences

The most notable specification differences between the two cards are in their memory subsystems and power requirements. The AMD FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 also has 4 GB of GDDR5, but on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, an 80% advantage in memory throughput.

Clock speeds also differ. The K4200 has a base clock of 771 MHz and a boost clock of 784 MHz, while the W4300 has no base or boost clock listed in the data. However, the W4300's memory clock is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), which is higher than the K4200's 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), though the narrower bus negates this advantage.

The power profiles are starkly different. The W4300 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, requires one 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. Both are single-slot cards, but the W4300 is much smaller: 171 mm long and 69 mm high, versus the K4200's 241 mm length and 111 mm height.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K4200 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 standard. Display outputs are another point of differentiation: the W4300 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the K4200 has one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Finally, the W4300 was released on 2015-11-30, while the K4200 was released earlier on 2014-07-21, making the W4300 the newer design despite its lower performance.