AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs AMD Radeon Pro 5500M

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD Radeon Pro 5500M represent two distinct generations of professional mobile and workstation graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD part, which wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons by substantial margins, yet the Quadro K4200 retains relevance in specific legacy workloads. The K4200, built on the Kepler architecture at 28 nm, was designed for professional visualization in 2014, while the Pro 5500M, using RDNA 1.0 at 7 nm, targets modern Mac-based creative workflows from 2019. Their average benchmark scores—12398 for the Quadro versus 11528 for the Radeon—are surprisingly close, yet percentile rankings place both near the median of all GPUs (52nd and 51st percentile, respectively).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a higher average benchmark score of 12398, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M's 11528. However, this aggregate metric hides the Radeon's dominance in compute-heavy workloads.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro 5500M perform in OpenCL relative to the Quadro K4200?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31088 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 60.4% ahead of the Quadro K4200's 12313. This represents the largest single-benchmark gap between the two cards.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M's 7 nm process yields a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², which is over three times higher than the Quadro K4200's 12.0M per mm² from its 28 nm process. The Radeon packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, while the Quadro fits 3,540 million into 294 mm².

Q: Do these GPUs support different DirectX feature levels?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K4200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M achieves a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s, more than double the Quadro K4200's 21.95 GPixel/s. This advantage comes from the Radeon's higher boost clock of 1450 MHz versus the Quadro's 784 MHz.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare in bandwidth?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M provides 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro K4200 delivers 172.8 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the Radeon's faster 12 Gbps effective memory clock overcomes the width disadvantage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts a score of 31088 versus 12313 for the Quadro K4200, a 60.4% advantage. The Vulkan gap is even wider: 35134 versus 12482, a 64.5% lead for AMD. These results indicate the Radeon is the clear choice for compute-heavy applications, GPU-accelerated rendering, and modern graphics APIs. Its higher FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS—more than double the Quadro's 2.107 TFLOPS—reinforces this positioning.

The Quadro K4200's wins are more subtle. It holds a higher average benchmark score (12398 vs 11528) across all recorded tests, and its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm and GeForce GTX 670, both within 3% of its score. This suggests the Quadro sits in a performance tier that remains competitive with older high-end compute cards. Its 256-bit memory bus and 112 TMUs provide a texture rate of 87.81 GTexel/s, which, while lower than the Radeon's 139.2 GTexel/s, still represents solid throughput for legacy professional applications.

For users working with DirectX 9 or 10 workloads, the Radeon's Passmark scores (96 for DX9, 36 for DX10) indicate strong legacy support, but the Quadro's Kepler architecture was specifically optimized for the professional OpenGL and CAD workloads common in 2014-era workstations. In scenarios where PCIe 2.0 compatibility is required—such as older workstation motherboards—the Quadro's interface matches that standard, while the Radeon's PCIe 4.0 x8 link is backward-compatible but may not be fully utilized.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by five years of process and microarchitecture evolution. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip on TSMC's 28 nm node, employing the Kepler architecture with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. Kepler was NVIDIA's first fully unified architecture, emphasizing efficiency through balanced shader and texture units. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses Navi 14 on TSMC's 7 nm node, built on RDNA 1.0, packing 6,400 million transistors into a much smaller 158 mm² die. RDNA was AMD's first major gaming architecture redesign since GCN, focusing on higher clock speeds and improved instruction-level parallelism.

The clock behavior differs dramatically. The Quadro runs at a modest 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost, reflecting the power constraints of 28 nm and the professional focus on stability over speed. The Radeon operates at 1000 MHz base and 1450 MHz boost, enabled by the efficiency of 7 nm. This clock advantage directly translates to the Radeon's higher pixel rate (46.40 vs 21.95 GPixel/s) and texture rate (139.2 vs 87.81 GTexel/s).

Shading resources also differ. The Quadro has 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Interestingly, the Quadro has more TMUs despite its older architecture, but the Radeon compensates with much higher clock speeds. The Radeon also supports FP16 compute at 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature absent from the Quadro, which has no FP16 capability listed. This makes the Radeon significantly faster for workloads that can utilize half-precision arithmetic, such as machine learning inference.

The memory architectures diverge in capacity and type. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon has 8 GB of GDDR6. Although the Quadro's 256-bit bus is twice as wide, the Radeon's faster 12 Gbps effective memory speed yields higher bandwidth (192.0 vs 172.8 GB/s). This combination of larger capacity and higher bandwidth makes the Radeon more suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Specification Differences

The most striking differences appear in process node and power. The Quadro K4200 is built on 28 nm with a 108 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested 300 W PSU. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses 7 nm, draws only 85 W, and requires no external power connectors, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. The Radeon's transistor density of 40.5M / mm² is more than triple the Quadro's 12.0M / mm², illustrating the density gains from process shrinks.

Memory capacity doubles from 4 GB to 8 GB, and the type advances from GDDR5 to GDDR6. The bus width narrows from 256 bit to 128 bit, but effective memory speed increases from 5.4 Gbps to 12 Gbps, resulting in higher overall bandwidth. The Radeon supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16—a four-generation gap in interconnect technology.

Display outputs differ significantly. The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, making it suitable for fixed multi-monitor workstation setups. The Radeon's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its primary use in laptops where display connectivity varies by design. Physical dimensions also differ: the Quadro is a 241 mm (9.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall single-slot card, while the Radeon's dimensions are not specified due to its mobile nature.

API support reveals generational advantages. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro caps at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon's newer API support enables features like variable rate shading and mesh shaders in DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, though the data does not specify these capabilities directly.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins both recorded comparisons, and by massive margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon scores 31088 against the Quadro's 12313, a delta of -60.4% for the NVIDIA card. This means the Radeon delivers roughly 2.5 times the OpenCL performance. This result aligns with the Radeon's FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS versus 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro—the compute advantage is nearly proportional to the raw floating-point capability.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger relative gap. The Radeon scores 35134, while the Quadro manages only 12482, a -64.5% delta. Vulkan is a modern low-overhead API that benefits from the Radeon's newer architecture and higher clock speeds. The Quadro's Kepler architecture was designed before Vulkan existed (the specification was finalized in 2016), so its driver and hardware support are less optimized for this workload.

Contextualizing these scores against each card's nearest rivals provides additional insight. The Quadro K4200's average score of 12398 places it near the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12625, -1.8% delta) and the GeForce GTX 670 (12773, -2.9% delta), while it sits 3.3% above the GeForce GTX 960A (11998). This suggests the Quadro is competitive with high-end Kepler-era compute cards. The Radeon Pro 5500M's average of 11528 is nearly identical to the Tesla K20c (11479, +0.4% delta) and just 0.8% below the Radeon RX 7800 XT (11627), indicating that despite its lower raw score than the Quadro's average, it competes with a much newer set of GPUs—the RX 7800 XT is a 2023 desktop card.

The Radeon's Passmark scores provide additional texture. Its DirectX 9 score of 96 and DirectX 11 score of 42 show strong legacy API performance, while its G3D score of 6732 and GPU compute score of 3240 demonstrate balanced capability. The Geekbench Metal score of 38235 is notably high, reflecting the Radeon's optimization for Apple's Metal API, though no comparable Metal score exists for the Quadro. The overall picture is clear: the Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior compute performer in modern APIs, while the Quadro K4200's higher average score is driven by legacy benchmark weighting that favors its architecture.