GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD Radeon Pro 555 represent two very different approaches to professional graphics, separated by three years of GPU evolution and aimed at distinct physical environments. The data shows a narrow but consistent lead for the older NVIDIA card in cross-platform compute APIs, while the AMD card counters with a significant advantage in Apple’s Metal framework and a higher overall benchmark percentile. This comparison is less about raw dominance and more about identifying which card’s specific strengths align with a given workload.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split reveals a clear division of labor. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 takes the win in both shared benchmark tests, but its margins are modest. In Geekbench OpenCL, the K4200 scores 12,313 against the Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682, a 5.4% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows to just 1.5%, with scores of 12,482 and 12,303 respectively. These results suggest that for general-purpose compute tasks running through OpenCL or Vulkan, the Kepler-based NVIDIA card holds a slight edge in raw throughput, likely due to its wider memory bus and higher shading unit count.

However, the Radeon Pro 555’s only other benchmark result, Geekbench Metal, tells a different story. It scores 16,236, which is dramatically higher than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. This indicates that the AMD card is heavily optimized for Apple’s Metal API, making it the clear winner for graphics workloads in macOS environments. The NVIDIA card has no Metal benchmark listed, meaning it cannot compete on that front at all. When calculating the average benchmark score, the Radeon Pro 555’s Metal result pulls its average to 13,407, which is 8.1% higher than the Quadro K4200’s average of 12,398. This average is also reflected in the percentile rankings, where the Radeon Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4200 sits at the 52nd.

The use-case split is therefore stark: the Quadro K4200 wins in cross-platform compute APIs, while the Radeon Pro 555 wins in the Apple-centric Metal ecosystem and has a higher overall average score. For a professional working in a Windows or Linux environment with OpenCL-dependent applications, the K4200 is the safer bet. For a Mac user relying on Metal-accelerated software, the Radeon Pro 555 is the only logical choice, given its massive Metal advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 has a higher average benchmark score of 13,407, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,398. This is driven entirely by the AMD card’s strong Geekbench Metal result of 16,236.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K4200 scores 12,313 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.4% higher than the Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682 score. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any shared test.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance difference significant?

A: No, the difference is minimal. The Quadro K4200 scores 12,482, while the Radeon Pro 555 scores 12,303, a margin of only 1.5%. In practical terms, this is nearly a tie for Vulkan workloads.

Q: What is the Radeon Pro 555’s best benchmark result?

A: The Radeon Pro 555’s best result is its Geekbench Metal score of 16,236. This is roughly 39% higher than its own OpenCL score, highlighting a strong specialization for Apple’s graphics API.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 have a Metal benchmark score?

A: No, the fact pack does not list a Geekbench Metal score for the Quadro K4200. Its only listed benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Which card ranks higher relative to all other GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 ranks at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, which is two percentile points higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 52nd percentile ranking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two benchmark tests, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 wins both. The most decisive victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the K4200’s score of 12,313 beats the Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682 by a full 5.4%. This is a meaningful margin for a compute API, suggesting that the Quadro’s 1344 shading units and 256-bit memory interface provide a tangible throughput advantage over the Radeon’s 768 shading units and 128-bit bus. The K4200 also has a higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s compared to the Radeon’s 81.60 GB/s, which directly impacts OpenCL workloads that are often memory-bound.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story, with a much tighter race. The Quadro K4200 scores 12,482, and the Radeon Pro 555 scores 12,303, a delta of just 1.5%. This near-parity is interesting because it suggests that the Radeon Pro 555’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface help it close the gap in Vulkan, despite its lower raw specs. The data implies that Vulkan’s lower-level overhead benefits the AMD card more than the NVIDIA card, even though the NVIDIA card still manages to eke out a win.

The missing head-to-head test, however, is Geekbench Metal, where the Radeon Pro 555 scores 16,236. If this test were included in the head-to-head comparison, the AMD card would win decisively. The absence of a Metal score for the Quadro K4200 is not just a data gap; it is a functional gap, as the NVIDIA card likely lacks the driver-level optimization for Metal that the AMD card enjoys. This makes the overall head-to-head score of 2 wins for the Quadro K4200 and 0 for the Radeon Pro 555 somewhat misleading, as it excludes the one test where the AMD card demonstrates its clear superiority.

Specification Differences

The physical and electrical specifications of these two cards could not be more different. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is a full-length, single-slot card measuring 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, requiring a 300 W suggested power supply and a single 6-pin power connector. Its TDP is rated at 108 W. The AMD Radeon Pro 555, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no dimensions listed, no power connectors, and a much lower TDP of 75 W. It is designed to be soldered onto a motherboard, making it suitable for compact laptops like the MacBook Pro.

The memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 555 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 81.60 GB/s. This is a 2x difference in bus width and a 2.1x difference in bandwidth, which explains the Quadro’s advantage in OpenCL. The clock speeds tell another part of the story: the Quadro runs at a base of 771 MHz with a boost of 784 MHz and memory at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the Radeon Pro 555 has no listed base or boost clocks but runs its memory at 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

The bus interface is another key differentiator. The Quadro K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, an older standard, while the Radeon Pro 555 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, which may help the Radeon card compensate for its narrower memory bus. Finally, the display outputs differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon Pro 555’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary based on the laptop it is installed in.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is a study in technological progression. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, and is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 555, using the Polaris 21 chip, is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture and uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². This means the AMD card is more than twice as dense, a direct result of the smaller process node.

The compute units differ significantly. The Quadro K4200 has 1344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro 555 has only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA card a 1.75x advantage in shading units and a 2.33x advantage in TMUs, which explains its higher pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s vs 13.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 40.80 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute also favors the Quadro, with 2.107 TFLOPS versus the Radeon’s 1,305.6 GFLOPS. However, the Radeon Pro 555 has a 1:1 FP16 ratio, also rated at 1,305.6 GFLOPS, while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability.

The API support also differs. The Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon Pro 555 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon’s Vulkan 1.3 support is a newer revision, which may explain its relatively stronger Vulkan performance despite lower raw specs. The release dates highlight the generational gap: the Quadro K4200 launched on July 21, 2014, while the Radeon Pro 555 launched on June 4, 2017, nearly three years later.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct purchasing decisions. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the choice for users who prioritize OpenCL compute performance in a traditional desktop workstation. Its wins in OpenCL (5.4% ahead) and Vulkan (1.5% ahead) are backed by a 2.1x memory bandwidth advantage and a 1.75x shading unit advantage. It is a larger, hotter card requiring a 300 W power supply, but it delivers consistent cross-platform compute performance. The Radeon Pro 555, on the other hand, is the choice for users locked into the Apple ecosystem. Its Geekbench Metal score of 16,236 is a standout figure that suggests excellent optimization for macOS, and its higher average benchmark score (13,407 vs 12,398) and better percentile ranking (54th vs 52nd) reflect its overall versatility. However, its 2 GB memory and 128-bit bus are limiting factors for large datasets. The verdict is clear: for Windows/Linux OpenCL work, pick the Quadro K4200; for Mac Metal work, the Radeon Pro 555 is the only card with a relevant score.