AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8950M and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 are both end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions from the 2013-2014 era, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process. Despite their age, benchmark data shows the AMD part holds a lead in both tested workloads, though the NVIDIA card counters with a significantly larger memory pool and higher raw compute ceilings. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each card retains relevance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear, if modest, victory for the AMD Radeon HD 8950M in both benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 13,772 against the Quadro K4200’s 12,313, yielding an 11.8% advantage. This is the largest margin between the two cards and suggests the GCN 2.0 architecture handles compute workloads more efficiently relative to its specifications. The Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably: the HD 8950M scores 12,979 versus 12,482 for the Quadro, a 4% lead. While the AMD card wins both, the shrinking delta in Vulkan indicates that NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture scales better in this newer API.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the HD 8950M posts 13,376, placing it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K4200 averages 12,398, sitting at the 52nd percentile. The 978-point gap in averages reinforces the OpenCL result, but the percentile difference is narrow—just 2 points. The nearest rival data provides context: the HD 8950M is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro M6100 (delta of 0.2%) and the Radeon Pro 555 (delta of -0.2%), while the Quadro K4200 trails the GeForce GTX 670 by 2.9% but beats the GeForce GTX 960A by 3.3%. This places both cards in a similar performance tier, with the AMD part consistently ahead but not by a transformative margin.

The individual benchmark scores tell a story of diminishing returns. The 11.8% OpenCL win is substantial for real-world compute tasks like rendering or simulation, but the 4% Vulkan delta suggests that for gaming or modern API workloads, the difference may be imperceptible. Notably, the Quadro’s Vulkan score of 12,482 is closer to its OpenCL score than the AMD card’s, indicating more consistent performance across APIs. For a builder choosing between these two in 2024, the HD 8950M is the faster card on paper, but the Quadro’s design goals—stability and certification—may offset raw speed in professional environments.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M averages 13,376, which is 978 points higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,398. This places the AMD card in the 54th percentile versus the Quadro’s 52nd.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The HD 8950M scores 12,979 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 4% lead over the Quadro K4200’s 12,482. This is a smaller margin than the OpenCL gap, suggesting the NVIDIA card is relatively stronger in Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K4200 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the HD 8950M’s 2 GB. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus the AMD’s 128-bit, resulting in 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 88.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has higher shading unit counts?

A: The Quadro K4200 packs 1,344 shading units, while the HD 8950M has only 768. Similarly, the Quadro has 112 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, versus 48 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the AMD card.

Q: What is the peak FP32 performance for each?

A: The Quadro K4200 achieves 2.107 TFLOPS, which is 27.6% higher than the HD 8950M’s 1.651 TFLOPS. This is despite the AMD card winning the benchmark tests.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The AMD Radeon HD 8950M was released on 2013-05-13, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 followed on 2014-07-21.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8950M wins decisively in OpenCL compute tasks, posting an 11.8% advantage over the Quadro K4200. This makes it the better choice for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, such as video encoding, physics simulations, or scientific calculations. The AMD card also wins in Vulkan, but the 4% margin is less compelling; still, for lightweight modern gaming or Vulkan-based workloads, the HD 8950M holds the edge.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 counters with a massive memory advantage: 4 GB versus 2 GB, and 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth versus 88.00 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound—large texture sets, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-heavy compute—the Quadro’s 256-bit bus and double capacity will prevent bottlenecks that could cripple the AMD card. The Quadro also offers higher theoretical peak rates: 2.107 TFLOPS of FP32, 87.81 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 21.95 GPixel/s of pixel throughput. These specs suggest that in scenarios where the AMD card’s 768 shading units run out of headroom, the Quadro’s 1,344 units could sustain performance longer, even if benchmark results don’t reflect it.

For a professional workstation context, the Quadro’s single-slot design and 1x 6-pin power connector make it easier to integrate into dense systems, while the HD 8950M’s MXM module form factor suits laptops. The Quadro also supports PCIe 2.0 x16, which, while older, is sufficient for most workloads. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, offering double the bandwidth for data transfer—a benefit if the host platform supports it.

Specification Differences

The most glaring difference is memory: the Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the HD 8950M has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus at 88.00 GB/s. This is a 2x capacity and 1.96x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA. Compute units follow a similar pattern: the Quadro has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the AMD’s 768, 48, and 16, respectively. The Quadro also clocks higher, with a base of 771 MHz and boost of 784 MHz, though the AMD’s memory runs slightly faster at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps).

The AMD card compensates with a higher transistor density: 13.0M per mm² across a 160 mm² die (2,080 million transistors), compared to the Quadro’s 12.0M per mm² on a 294 mm² die (3,540 million transistors). The Quadro draws 108 W versus the AMD’s 100 W, a modest difference. Form factors diverge: the HD 8950M is an MXM module, while the Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requiring a 300 W PSU and 1x 6-pin connector. Display outputs also differ—the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the AMD’s outputs are portable device dependent.

API support shows parity in OpenGL (4.6 both), but the HD 8950M supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD’s higher DirectX feature level could matter for newer games, though neither card is suited for modern AAA titles.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon HD 8950M is built on GCN 2.0 architecture with the Saturn chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses Kepler with the GK104 chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but the underlying designs diverge significantly. GCN 2.0 emphasizes compute throughput with a unified shader array, whereas Kepler focuses on power efficiency and geometry processing. The AMD card’s 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die achieves a higher density (13.0M / mm²), but the Quadro’s larger die (294 mm²) houses 3,540 million transistors, allowing for more execution units.

The Quadro’s Kepler architecture features 1,344 shading units, which is 75% more than the HD 8950M’s 768. This explains the Quadro’s higher theoretical FP32 performance (2.107 TFLOPS versus 1.651 TFLOPS) and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s versus 51.60 GTexel/s). However, the AMD card’s GCN design appears to utilize its fewer units more efficiently in real-world OpenCL tests, as evidenced by the 11.8% win. The Vulkan results suggest that Kepler’s older design handles modern APIs better than expected, but GCN 2.0 still edges it out.

Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support, so these are purely rasterization and compute parts. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro is limited to 12 (11_0), which may affect feature-level compatibility. The Quadro’s Kepler generation is part of the Quadro Kx200 series, targeting professional visualization, while the HD 8950M belongs to the Solar System (HD 8900M) family, aimed at high-end mobile gaming. This architectural lineage explains the different design priorities: the AMD card optimizes raw compute on a smaller die, while the NVIDIA card maximizes memory and fill rates for professional workloads.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon HD 8950M if your priority is raw benchmark performance. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL (11.8% ahead) and Vulkan (4% ahead), and it holds a higher average score of 13,376 versus 12,398. The AMD card is also more compact as an MXM module and supports PCIe 3.0, making it a better fit for laptops or systems with newer bus interfaces. Its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is another point in its favor for compatibility with modern APIs.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 if you need memory capacity and bandwidth. The 4 GB frame buffer and 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth are double the AMD’s, which is critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-monitor setups. The Quadro also offers superior theoretical compute (2.107 TFLOPS), texture fill (87.81 GTexel/s), and pixel fill (21.95 GPixel/s), which may benefit specific professional applications that don’t align with the Geekbench tests. Its single-slot form factor and DisplayPort outputs make it a practical workstation card.

The data does not support a universal winner. The HD 8950M is faster in the tested benchmarks, but the Quadro’s memory and compute headroom suggest it could win in unbenchmarked scenarios. For a builder optimizing for measured performance, the AMD card is the choice. For a professional needing stability and memory headroom, the Quadro justifies its existence. Given the narrow benchmark margins and the Quadro’s significant spec advantages, the K4200 is arguably the safer long-term pick, but the HD 8950M is the performance leader by every tested metric.