AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 5500M and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 occupy entirely different eras and market segments, and benchmark data confirms the RX 5500M is the decisively faster GPU. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the AMD part wins both, with a 214.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 186% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro K4200, a Kepler-generation workstation card from 2014, trails by margins so large that its remaining strengths—primarily its 256-bit memory bus and single-slot form factor—do little to offset the generational gap in compute throughput. This analysis breaks down the architectural chasm, specification differences, and benchmark results to show exactly where each card stands.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the shared benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins both head-to-head benchmarks. It scores 38,725 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 12,313 for the Quadro K4200 (a 214.5% advantage), and 35,693 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 12,482 (a 186% advantage).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 5500M has an average benchmark score of 13,356 across all its tested workloads, while the Quadro K4200 averages 12,398. The RX 5500M sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the Quadro’s 52nd percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: For the RX 5500M, the nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M6100, which scores 13,354—a 0% delta. The Quadro K4200’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm at 12,625, which is 1.8% higher, followed by the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 (2.5% higher).

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K4200 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan versions differ: the RX 5500M supports Vulkan 1.4, and the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but the RX 5500M uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K4200 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro’s wider bus does not compensate for its lower memory clock and older technology.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W and requires no power connectors, whereas the Quadro K4200 has a 108 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The AMD card delivers substantially higher performance while drawing less power.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two GPUs is architectural generation and manufacturing process. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M is built on RDNA 1.0 architecture using a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses the older Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process shrink is enormous: the RX 5500M packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K4200, by contrast, contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of just 12.0 million per square millimeter. The RX 5500M fits nearly twice as many transistors into roughly half the silicon area.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The RX 5500M runs at a base clock of 1375 MHz, a game clock of 1448 MHz, and a boost clock of 1645 MHz. The Quadro K4200 is dramatically slower, with a base of 771 MHz and a boost of only 784 MHz—less than half the AMD’s boost frequency. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, explains why the RX 5500M achieves 4.632 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus just 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro.

The RX 5500M also supports FP16 compute at 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature entirely absent from the Quadro K4200, which has no listed FP16 capability. The memory subsystems differ as well: the AMD uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the NVIDIA’s GDDR5 at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). Despite the Quadro’s wider 256-bit bus, its bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s falls short of the RX 5500M’s 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The RX 5500M also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

Feature-wise, the RX 5500M is a Radeon RX 5000 series part with a Navi 14 chip, designed for mobile gaming. The Quadro K4200 is a professional workstation card from the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, using the GK104 chip. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5500M is the superior GPU for virtually any workload measured. Its average benchmark score of 13,356 versus 12,398 for the Quadro K4200 represents a clear overall advantage, and in the two directly comparable tests, the AMD card wins by margins of 214.5% and 186%. The RX 5500M is also more efficient, with a lower TDP (85 W vs 108 W), no power connector requirement, and a smaller die on a modern 7 nm process.

The Quadro K4200 should only be considered by users who specifically need its professional workstation features, such as the single-slot form factor (241 mm length, 111 mm height), the 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and the 256-bit memory bus—though that bus does not yield higher bandwidth. For anyone comparing raw performance, the RX 5500M is the clear choice. It wins every shared benchmark, has a higher percentile ranking (54th vs 52nd), and offers nearly double the FP32 throughput. The Quadro’s only advantages are its wider memory bus and its status as a predecessor to Quadro Maxwell, which is irrelevant to performance comparisons.

Given that both cards are end-of-life products, the decision hinges on workload compatibility. If the software relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 5500M is overwhelmingly faster. The Quadro K4200’s only niche is legacy workstation deployments where its specific display outputs and single-slot design are mandatory. Otherwise, the RX 5500M wins on every measurable performance metric.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every specification. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card has more shading units but fewer TMUs; the NVIDIA has the TMU advantage. Pixel rates differ sharply: the RX 5500M achieves 52.64 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rates are 144.8 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds are dramatically different, as noted: the RX 5500M boosts to 1645 MHz, the Quadro to just 784 MHz. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. The RX 5500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus; the Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth favors AMD at 224.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s.

Power and physical specs also differ. The RX 5500M has an 85 W TDP, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro K4200 has a 108 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 300 W, and is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm by 111 mm. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 on the AMD and PCIe 2.0 x16 on the NVIDIA. The RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4; the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both share OpenGL 4.6. The RX 5500M has no FP16 data listed for the Quadro, while the AMD card does 9.265 TFLOPS FP16. Finally, the RX 5500M was released in October 2019, succeeding Polaris Mobile, while the Quadro K4200 was released in July 2014, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M scores 38,725 against the Quadro K4200’s 12,313, a delta of 214.5% in favor of AMD. This is not a marginal win; the RX 5500M more than triples the Quadro’s score. The gap is slightly narrower in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD scores 35,693 versus 12,482 for the NVIDIA, a 186% advantage. Both tests confirm that the RX 5500M’s modern architecture and higher clocks translate into massive compute advantages.

These results align with the broader benchmark picture. The RX 5500M’s average score of 13,356 places it at the 54th percentile, while the Quadro’s 12,398 sits at the 52nd. The RX 5500M’s nearest rivals—the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, 0% delta), AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, -0.1%), and AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321, 0.3%)—are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating a tightly clustered performance tier. The Quadro K4200’s rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, -1.8%), AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, -2.5%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773, -2.9%), showing it sits slightly below those parts.

The RX 5500M also shows strength in specific benchmark categories from its own suite: it scores 50,359 in Geekbench Metal, 5,848 in Passmark G3D, and 2,316 in Passmark GPU Compute. The Quadro K4200 has no corresponding scores for these tests in the data, so direct comparison is limited to the two Geekbench tests, both of which the AMD card wins decisively. The wins total 2 for the AMD and 0 for the NVIDIA, a clean sweep.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins in every scenario where compute performance matters. Its 4.632 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 9.265 TFLOPS FP16 capability, and 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, as evidenced by its 214.5% and 186% benchmark leads. Its lower TDP (85 W vs 108 W) and lack of power connectors make it suitable for mobile or power-constrained systems. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides a modern connection, and the 7 nm process ensures efficiency. For gaming, the RDNA 1.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_1) support position it well, though the data does not include gaming-specific frame-rate tests.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 wins only in niche areas. Its 256-bit memory bus is wider than the RX 5500M’s 128-bit bus, which could theoretically benefit certain bandwidth-sensitive legacy applications, though the actual bandwidth is lower (172.8 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s). Its single-slot design and specific display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) make it a fit for multi-display workstation setups that require those connectors. The Quadro’s 112 TMUs exceed the RX 5500M’s 88, giving it a texture unit count advantage, but this does not translate into higher texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 144.8 GTexel/s). Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface may be the only option for older motherboards lacking PCIe 4.0 support.

In practical terms, the RX 5500M is the right pick for anyone prioritizing compute throughput, modern API support, and power efficiency. The Quadro K4200 is only preferable for users who require the physical form factor, legacy display outputs, or specific professional certification that comes with the Quadro brand—none of which are reflected in raw benchmark scores. The data consistently favors the AMD card, making the decision straightforward for most buyers.