AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT in the two common benchmark tests available for both cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 points against the Quadro K4200's 12,313 points, a massive 281.4% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is a generational gap that places the AMD card in a completely different performance tier for compute workloads.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, tells a similar story. The RX 5500 XT posts a score of 44,191, while the Quadro K4200 manages 12,482. This represents a 254% delta in favor of the AMD card. The NVIDIA card's Vulkan support is limited to version 1.2.175, and the benchmark results indicate that the older Kepler architecture simply cannot keep pace with the modern RDNA 1.0 design in this API.

Looking at the broader database averages, the RX 5500 XT holds an average benchmark score of 14,692 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 57th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K4200 averages 12,398, sitting in the 52nd percentile. The RX 5500 XT's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 at 14,747 (a 0.4% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 at 14,532 (1.1% behind the AMD card). The Quadro K4200, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm at 12,625 (1.8% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 (2.5% difference).

The head-to-head data records 2 wins for the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and 0 wins for the NVIDIA Quadro K4200. There are no benchmark tests in the database where the Quadro K4200 comes out ahead. The performance delta is so large that no amount of driver optimization or workload tuning could realistically close the gap.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT in OpenCL compute?

A: The RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K4200 scores 12,313. This gives the AMD card a 281.4% lead in that specific test.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the RX 5500 XT wins both shared tests. The database records 2 wins for the AMD card and 0 wins for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do these cards compare in overall average benchmark scores?

A: The RX 5500 XT has an average benchmark score of 14,692 across all tests, placing it in the 57th percentile. The Quadro K4200 averages 12,398, putting it in the 52nd percentile.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance difference between the two?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 5500 XT scores 44,191 versus the Quadro K4200's 12,482, a 254% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance class based on the database's rival data?

A: No. The RX 5500 XT's nearest rivals are cards like the GeForce GTX 770 and Quadro M2000, with average scores around 14,500 to 14,700. The Quadro K4200's nearest rivals include the Tesla K20Xm and GeForce GTX 670, with averages around 12,000 to 12,700.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX 5500 XT ranks in the 57th percentile, while the Quadro K4200 ranks in the 52nd percentile. This reflects the consistent lead the AMD card holds across the recorded benchmark suite.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT wins in every measured category where both cards have data. In OpenCL compute, its 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance against the Quadro K4200's 2.107 TFLOPS explains the 281.4% benchmark lead. The RX 5500 XT also delivers 162.4 GTexel/s of texture fill rate versus 87.81 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card, and 59.04 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 21.95 GPixel/s.

The Quadro K4200 has no recorded benchmark wins. However, it does have some physical advantages that matter in specific deployment scenarios. It is a single-slot card at 241 mm in length, compared to the RX 5500 XT's dual-slot design at 180 mm. The Quadro K4200 also draws less power at 108 W TDP versus 130 W, and uses a single 6-pin power connector instead of the RX 5500 XT's 8-pin. For systems with strict power budgets or limited internal space, the Quadro K4200 may be easier to integrate, but this does not translate into any performance win in the database.

The RX 5500 XT is the pick for any workload that touches compute, graphics rendering, or modern API performance. The Quadro K4200's only theoretical advantage lies in its professional branding and single-slot form factor, not in any measurable performance metric recorded here.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially across nearly every specification. The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s. Despite the wider bus, the older memory technology results in lower bandwidth.

Clock speeds show a stark contrast. The RX 5500 XT runs at a 1607 MHz base clock and 1845 MHz boost, with a 1717 MHz game clock. The Quadro K4200 operates at a 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the AMD card versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card.

The shading unit counts are similar on paper: 1408 for the RX 5500 XT and 1344 for the Quadro K4200. However, the texture mapping units differ significantly, with 88 TMUs on the AMD card and 112 on the NVIDIA card. Both have 32 ROPs. The RX 5500 XT supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs also differ. The RX 5500 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro K4200 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA card is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is 1.4 on the AMD card versus 1.2.175 on the NVIDIA card. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Physical dimensions diverge as well. The RX 5500 XT measures 180 mm (7.1 inches) in length, while the Quadro K4200 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The RX 5500 XT is dual-slot; the Quadro K4200 is single-slot.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is built on the Navi 14 chip using RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter.

The process node difference is the most fundamental architectural gap. The 7 nm node allows the RX 5500 XT to fit more than twice the transistor density into a smaller die, which directly contributes to its higher clock speeds and compute throughput. The Kepler architecture on the Quadro K4200 is from a much older generation, and the data shows its 2.107 TFLOPS FP32 performance is less than half of the RX 5500 XT's 5.196 TFLOPS.

The RX 5500 XT supports FP16 compute at 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro K4200 has no recorded FP16 capability. Both cards lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores. The RX 5500 XT belongs to the Navi (RX 5000) generation, succeeding Vega and preceding Navi II. The Quadro K4200 is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell.

The memory architecture also reflects generational differences. The RX 5500 XT uses GDDR6 with 14 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro K4200 relies on GDDR5 at 5.4 Gbps effective. The AMD card's 224.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the NVIDIA card's 172.8 GB/s despite the narrower 128-bit bus, showcasing the efficiency gains of newer memory technology.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity. The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 in every recorded benchmark. The 281.4% lead in OpenCL and 254% lead in Vulkan are not incremental improvements; they represent a complete generational shift in compute capability.

For users who need raw graphics or compute performance, the RX 5500 XT is the only defensible choice from this comparison. Its 57th percentile ranking versus the Quadro K4200's 52nd percentile, combined with a 14,692 average score against 12,398, confirms the AMD card sits in a higher performance tier. The RX 5500 XT also offers modern API support including DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4200 is limited to DirectX 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Quadro K4200 does have niche appeal. Its single-slot design at 241 mm length and lower 108 W TDP make it easier to fit into dense or constrained systems. The 6-pin power connector is also less demanding than the 8-pin requirement on the RX 5500 XT. For someone maintaining legacy professional systems where the Quadro's Kepler architecture is already integrated into the workflow, the K4200 remains functional. But the recorded performance data shows it is not competitive with the RX 5500 XT in any measured task.

The recommendation is straightforward: choose the RX 5500 XT for any new build or upgrade where performance matters. Choose the Quadro K4200 only if the single-slot form factor or lower power draw is an absolute requirement, and accept that benchmark results will be roughly a quarter of the AMD card's output in compute workloads. The RX 5500 XT is the faster card by every metric in the database, and the margin is substantial enough to make the older NVIDIA card obsolete for all but the most specialized legacy applications.