AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between the two cards, though not in a way that favors the newer AMD part. Across the two shared tests, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 takes both wins, with the largest margin appearing in OpenCL compute. The AMD Radeon RX 550 does not win a single head-to-head comparison in the database, but it does hold its own in raw API-level performance, particularly in Vulkan, where the gap narrows to a slim 1.7% margin.

For OpenCL workloads, the Quadro K4200 is clearly the stronger option. Its score of 12,313 versus 11,063 represents an 11.3% advantage, a meaningful difference for compute tasks that scale with shading unit count and memory bandwidth. The Quadro’s 1,344 shading units and 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth provide a structural edge over the RX 550’s 512 shading units and 112.0 GB/s. In practice, this means the NVIDIA card should handle OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, and general GPU compute with noticeably less latency.

Vulkan performance tells a different story. The Quadro K4200 scores 12,482, while the RX 550 posts 12,270, a delta of just 1.7%. This is effectively a tie in real-world terms, and it speaks to the RX 550’s architectural efficiency. Despite having fewer than half the shading units and a narrower 128-bit memory bus, the AMD card nearly matches the older Kepler part in Vulkan. That suggests the GCN 4.0 architecture extracts more performance per transistor, and its newer driver stack likely contributes to better API-level optimization.

Where the RX 550 does have a unique claim is in its Metal score. The database records a geekbench_metal result of 20,838 for the AMD card, a test that the Quadro K4200 does not have a recorded score for. This makes the RX 550 the only card of the pair with measurable Metal performance, which is relevant for macOS or other Metal-accelerated environments. The Quadro K4200, by contrast, has no Metal data, so users relying on that API should consider the AMD part.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The Quadro K4200 averages 12,398 across its two recorded tests, placing it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 550 averages 11,075 across four tests, which lands in the 50th percentile. The percentile difference is small, but the Quadro’s higher ceiling in compute-heavy workloads gives it a slight overall edge.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the better choice for compute-focused tasks. It wins both shared benchmarks, with an 11.3% lead in OpenCL and a 1.7% lead in Vulkan. Its average score of 12,398 is 11.9% higher than the RX 550’s 11,075, and it sits in a higher percentile relative to all GPUs (52nd versus 50th). For anyone running OpenCL workloads, the Quadro is the clear pick.

The AMD Radeon RX 550, however, is not without merit. It has a recorded Metal score of 20,838, which is substantially higher than any score the Quadro produces in other tests, and it offers a more modern feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and HDMI 2.0b with DisplayPort 1.4a. It also draws far less power, with a 50 W TDP versus 108 W, and requires no auxiliary power connector, making it a simpler drop-in for low-power systems. Its shorter 145 mm length also fits smaller chassis.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance and are willing to accept a 108 W power draw and a 6-pin connector, the Quadro K4200 delivers more per benchmark. For users who need Metal support, want a modern API stack, or are building a low-power system, the RX 550 is the more sensible option. The data does not support choosing the RX 550 for OpenCL or Vulkan performance, as it loses both of those tests. It only wins in the absence of a Quadro Metal result.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite includes two tests: geekbench_opencl and geekbench_vulkan. In OpenCL, the Quadro K4200 scores 12,313 against the RX 550’s 11,063. That is an 11.3% delta, the largest margin in either direction between these two cards. The Quadro’s higher shading unit count (1,344 versus 512) and greater memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s) are the likely drivers of this gap. The RX 550 compensates with a higher base clock (1100 MHz versus 771 MHz) and a more modern 14 nm process, but the sheer throughput advantage of the Kepler part wins out.

In Vulkan, the margin shrinks dramatically. The Quadro scores 12,482, and the RX 550 posts 12,270, a 1.7% difference. This near-parity is notable because the RX 550 has a much smaller memory interface (128 bit versus 256 bit) and fewer texture units (32 versus 112). The newer GCN 4.0 architecture, paired with Vulkan 1.3 support, appears to close the gap that OpenCL exposes. The Quadro’s Vulkan 1.2.175 support is slightly older, which may explain why the AMD card competes so closely despite its hardware disadvantage.

When comparing to their respective nearest rivals, the Quadro K4200 sits within a tight cluster. Its average score of 12,398 is 1.8% below the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625) and 2.5% below the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710). It is 2.9% behind the GeForce GTX 670 (12,773) but 3.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 960A (11,998). These deltas show the Quadro is competitive with mid-range GPUs from its era, but it is not a top performer.

The RX 550’s nearest rivals tell a similar story of mid-pack positioning. Its average of 11,075 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, a 0.1% difference) and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (same score and delta). It is 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225). These numbers indicate the RX 550 performs in line with entry-level and older professional GPUs, with no significant outliers.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is faster in OpenCL, scoring 12,313 versus 11,063 for the AMD Radeon RX 550, a difference of 11.3%.

Q: How close is the Vulkan performance between the two?

A: The Vulkan scores are nearly identical. The Quadro K4200 scores 12,482, and the RX 550 scores 12,270, a margin of just 1.7%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 550 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: In the shared head-to-head tests, the RX 550 does not win either. It does have a recorded Metal score of 20,838, but the Quadro K4200 has no Metal score in the database, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro K4200 averages 12,398 across its two recorded tests, while the RX 550 averages 11,075 across four tests. This puts the Quadro in the 52nd percentile and the RX 550 in the 50th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a higher memory bandwidth at 172.8 GB/s, compared to 112.0 GB/s for the RX 550. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The RX 550 is more power-efficient, with a 50 W TDP versus 108 W for the Quadro K4200. The RX 550 also requires no power connectors, while the Quadro needs a single 6-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by three GPU generations. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture at a 28 nm process node from TSMC. It integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The AMD Radeon RX 550 uses the Lexa chip, based on GCN 4.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a much smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 21.4 million per mm².

The compute resources differ sharply. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the Quadro significantly higher pixel and texture rates: 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s, versus 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s for the RX 550. In floating-point performance, the Quadro delivers 2.107 TFLOPS of FP32, while the RX 550 provides 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The RX 550 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a feature the Quadro does not list.

Memory subsystems diverge as well. The Quadro K4200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 172.8 GB/s. The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 112.0 GB/s. Clock speeds favor the AMD card: the RX 550 boosts to 1,183 MHz, while the Quadro boosts to just 784 MHz. Memory clocks are also higher on the RX 550, with 7 Gbps effective versus 5.4 Gbps.

API support differs in important ways. The Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer DirectX and Vulkan versions on the AMD card are a clear advantage for modern software. The RX 550 also has a more current display output set, including HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro offers DVI and DisplayPort 1.2.

Physical and power characteristics vary. The Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card, 241 mm long, with a 108 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector. The RX 550 is a dual-slot card, 145 mm long, with a 50 W TDP and no power connector. The RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Quadro has a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the RX 550 only needs 250 W.

Release timing also separates them. The Quadro K4200 launched on 2014-07-21, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The RX 550 launched on 2017-04-19, following Arctic Islands and leading to Vega. Both are end-of-life products, but the RX 550 benefits from a more recent manufacturing process and a newer architecture. The Quadro’s higher transistor count and wider memory bus explain its compute lead, while the RX 550’s density and clock speed show where AMD focused its engineering effort.