AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 are both end-of-life professional graphics cards, but they represent very different design philosophies and eras. The K4200 is a larger, higher-power Kepler-based workstation card from 2014, while the WX 3200 is a compact, power-efficient Polaris-based card from 2019. The benchmark data, while limited, offers a clear picture of their relative compute performance, and their architectural specifications highlight stark contrasts in capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, which measures raw compute throughput. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12313, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 scores 11228. The K4200 wins this head-to-head with a delta of 9.7%. This is a significant margin in a compute workload, indicating that the older NVIDIA card has a distinct advantage in general-purpose GPU (GPGPU) tasks.

This OpenCL result aligns with the cards' theoretical FP32 performance figures. The K4200 delivers 2.107 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the WX 3200's 1.658 TFLOPS. The K4200's raw compute advantage of roughly 27% in theoretical specs translates to a 9.7% real-world benchmark win, which is plausible given that OpenCL performance is not solely dictated by raw FLOPs but also by driver efficiency and memory subsystem characteristics.

Looking at the broader context, the K4200's average benchmark score is 12398, placing it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are closely matched: it is -1.8% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (avg score 12625), -2.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (avg score 12710), and -2.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (avg score 12773). It is notably 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (avg score 11998). This shows the K4200 is a solid mid-pack performer in its era, sitting just below some high-end consumer GPUs of its time.

The WX 3200's average score is 11228, placing it at the 50th percentile. Its nearest rivals are a mixed bag. It is statistically tied with the AMD FirePro W4300 (avg score 11225, delta 0%), and it is -0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (avg score 11261). Interestingly, it is 1.3% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, both of which have an avg score of 11088. This suggests that the WX 3200's compute performance is respectable, but it is clearly a tier below the K4200 in this specific workload.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. The 9.7% lead in the OpenCL benchmark is decisive, and its higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 2.107 TFLOPS versus 1.658 TFLOPS supports this conclusion. For any workload that is heavily dependent on parallel floating-point calculations, the K4200 is the better choice based strictly on benchmark results.

However, the verdict is not one-sided. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a fundamentally more modern and efficient card. It operates on a 14 nm process node compared to the K4200's 28 nm, draws significantly less power (65 W TDP versus 108 W), and does not require a power connector, whereas the K4200 needs a 1x 6-pin connector. The WX 3200 also supports the newer PCIe 3.0 interface (albeit at x8 lanes), while the K4200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. While the K4200 wins on raw compute, the WX 3200 wins on platform integration, power draw, and modern feature support.

For a user with a limited power budget or a small form-factor system, the WX 3200 is the only viable option. For a user who prioritizes compute throughput above all else and has the power supply headroom, the K4200 is the superior choice. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a situational one.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K4200 wins on:

• Raw Compute Performance: The 9.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and higher FP32 throughput (2.107 TFLOPS) make it the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing.
• Memory Bandwidth: The K4200 has a 256-bit memory bus and delivers 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the WX 3200's 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s. This is a massive 80% advantage in memory bandwidth, which is critical for many professional workloads that are memory-bound.
• Texture and Pixel Fill Rates: With a texture rate of 87.81 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 21.95 GPixel/s, the K4200 substantially outperforms the WX 3200's 41.44 GTexel/s and 20.72 GPixel/s. This gives the K4200 an edge in tasks involving heavy texture filtering and rasterization, though the pixel rate difference is smaller.

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 wins on:

• Power Efficiency: The 65 W TDP versus 108 W is a critical advantage, requiring no external power connector and a lower suggested PSU (250 W versus 300 W).
• Modern API Support: The WX 3200 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This makes the WX 3200 more future-proof for newer applications.
• Display Outputs: The WX 3200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which is more flexible and modern than the K4200's 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 combination.
• Physical Footprint: The WX 3200 is significantly shorter (167 mm / 6.6 inches) and less tall (69 mm / 2.7 inches) than the K4200 (241 mm / 9.5 inches long, 111 mm / 4.4 inches high), making it far easier to install in compact chassis.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is faster, scoring 12313 versus the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 11228 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 9.7% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 require a power connector?

A: No, the WX 3200 has None for its power connectors, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 requires a 1x 6-pin connector.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200's 96.00 GB/s due to its wider 256-bit bus versus the WX 3200's 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has better support for modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 has better support, featuring DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro WX 3200 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro W4300?

A: They are statistically tied, with the WX 3200 scoring 11228 and the FirePro W4300 scoring 11225, resulting in a 0% delta.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200?

A: The launch MSRP of the Radeon Pro WX 3200 is 199 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process technologies. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It is a large die, measuring 294 mm² and containing 3,540 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². Its internal configuration includes 1344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs).

In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 uses the Polaris 23 chip based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is a much smaller and denser die, measuring only 103 mm² but containing 2,200 million transistors, yielding a significantly higher transistor density of 21.4M / mm². Its compute configuration is leaner, featuring 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

The memory subsystems also differ. The K4200 pairs its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus, achieving 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 3200 also has 4 GB of GDDR5, but it is connected via a narrower 128-bit bus, limiting bandwidth to 96.00 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ, with the K4200 running at a base of 771 MHz and boost of 784 MHz, while the WX 3200's core clocks are not specified in the data, though its memory is rated at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

The cards also differ in their interface and power requirements. The K4200 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, a 108 W TDP, and a single 6-pin power connector. The WX 3200 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, a much lower 65 W TDP, and requires no external power connector. The K4200 is also physically larger, at 241 mm in length, compared to the WX 3200's compact 167 mm length. These architectural differences explain the performance and efficiency trade-offs seen in the benchmark data.