AMD Radeon RX 580 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 580 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200: the RX 580 dominates every shared benchmark, delivering a 204.2% lead in OpenCL and a 261.9% lead in Vulkan, making this a one-sided comparison despite the Quadro’s workstation pedigree. The data shows a generational and architectural chasm, with the RX 580 posting an average benchmark score of 12,928 against the K4200’s 12,398, yet the head-to-head deltas reveal the RX 580’s true margin—over 3x in compute workloads. For any task leveraging these APIs, the RX 580 is the unequivocal choice, while the K4200 only remains relevant in legacy compatibility scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared tests paint a stark picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 580 scores 37,453 versus the K4200’s 12,313, a delta of 204.2% in favor of AMD. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a doubling of raw compute throughput, driven by the RX 580’s 6.175 TFLOPS FP32 versus the K4200’s 2.107 TFLOPS. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: 45,173 for the RX 580 against 12,482 for the K4200, a 261.9% advantage. Vulkan’s lower overhead amplifies the RX 580’s modern architecture, while the K4200’s Kepler design struggles to extract comparable performance from the API.

Beyond the shared tests, the RX 580’s broader benchmark suite shows consistent strength. Its Passmark G3D score of 8,813 and GPU Compute score of 3,488 reflect strong rasterization and compute abilities, while its Geekbench Metal score of 45,235 indicates robust cross-platform performance. The K4200 has no equivalent data in these tests, but its average benchmark score of 12,398—derived from just two tests—sits close to the RX 580’s 12,928 average, which is skewed upward by the latter’s 11-test sample. The deltas in shared workloads, however, are the definitive metric: the RX 580 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the K4200.

Contextualizing with nearest rivals: the RX 580’s average score is 0.1% behind the GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and 0.4% behind the GTX 1660 SUPER, placing it squarely in mid-range territory. The K4200, meanwhile, is 1.8% behind the Tesla K20Xm and 3.3% ahead of the GTX 960A, indicating it competes with older-generation parts. The RX 580’s percentile rank of 53 versus the K4200’s 52 shows they sit in similar overall positions, but that ranking masks the massive per-test deltas—the RX 580 achieves its position with modern efficiency, while the K4200 relies on legacy optimizations.

Architecture Differences

The core divergence lies in process node and architecture generation. The RX 580 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The K4200 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of just 12.0M per mm². The RX 580’s smaller node allows higher clocks—1257 MHz base and 1340 MHz boost versus the K4200’s 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost—while consuming more power (185 W TDP versus 108 W).

Architecturally, the RX 580 is GCN 4.0 (Polaris 20), a fourth-generation design optimized for compute and modern APIs. The K4200 is Kepler (GK104), a 2012-era architecture that predates many modern features. The RX 580 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 42.88 GPixel/s and texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s. The K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, yielding 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s. The RX 580’s FP32 throughput of 6.175 TFLOPS is nearly triple the K4200’s 2.107 TFLOPS, and it supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio, which the K4200 lacks entirely.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The RX 580 offers 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 2000 MHz memory clock and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K4200 has 4 GB GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but at 1350 MHz with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 580’s larger capacity and higher bandwidth are critical for modern textures and compute datasets. API support also diverges: the RX 580 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 580 wins in every measurable category from the data. In compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL and Vulkan, its 204.2% and 261.9% deltas, respectively, make it the only viable option for tasks like rendering, machine learning inference, or GPU-accelerated processing. Its higher texture rate (193.0 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (42.88 GPixel/s) suggest superior performance in gaming and real-time graphics, though no direct head-to-head test exists in the pack. The 8 GB memory capacity is double the K4200’s 4 GB, enabling larger datasets and higher-resolution textures without spillover.

The K4200’s advantages are limited to niche scenarios. Its single-slot design and 108 W TDP make it suitable for space- and power-constrained workstation builds, whereas the RX 580 requires dual-slot and 185 W. The K4200’s PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is backward-compatible with older systems, while the RX 580 demands PCIe 3.0 x16. For legacy software that predates Vulkan or DirectX 12, the K4200’s Kepler drivers may offer stability, but the benchmark data shows no performance win—its only scores are 12,313 in OpenCL and 12,482 in Vulkan, both far below the RX 580’s numbers.

The RX 580 also holds a decisive edge in future-proofing. Its Vulkan 1.3 support versus the K4200’s 1.2.175 means better compatibility with newer applications, and its DirectX 12 (12_0) feature level exceeds the K4200’s (11_0). The K4200’s FP16 null value confirms it cannot accelerate half-precision workloads, which are increasingly common in AI and compute. In summary, the RX 580 is the superior choice for any modern graphics or compute task, while the K4200 only makes sense for ultra-legacy systems where its low power and single-slot form factor are mandatory.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based solely on the fact pack:

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 580 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1257 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1340 MHz | 784 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1344 |

| TMUs | 144 | 112 |

| Pixel Rate | 42.88 GPixel/s | 21.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 193.0 GTexel/s | 87.81 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.175 TFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.175 TFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 185 W | 108 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2017-04-17 | 2014-07-21 |

| Predecessor | Arctic Islands | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Vega | Quadro Maxwell |

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 580 has 6.175 TFLOPS FP32, nearly triple the K4200’s 2.107 TFLOPS, and also supports FP16 at 6.175 TFLOPS, which the K4200 lacks.

Q: How much faster is the RX 580 in OpenCL?

A: The RX 580 scores 37,453 versus the K4200’s 12,313 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 204.2% advantage.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 580 has 8 GB GDDR5, while the K4200 has 4 GB GDDR5; both use a 256-bit bus, but the RX 580’s bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s.

Q: Does the K4200 support modern APIs?

A: The K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, but the RX 580 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, indicating better future compatibility.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The K4200 has a 108 W TDP and requires a 300 W PSU, while the RX 580 has a 185 W TDP and requires a 450 W PSU; the K4200 is also single-slot versus the RX 580’s dual-slot design.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The RX 580 averages 12,928 across 11 tests, while the K4200 averages 12,398 across 2 tests, but the head-to-head deltas favor the RX 580 by over 200%.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 580 is the superior graphics card in every shared benchmark and specification that matters for performance. Its 204.2% OpenCL and 261.9% Vulkan leads over the Quadro K4200 mean that any compute or modern graphics workload will run roughly 2-3 times faster on the RX 580. The 8 GB memory capacity, 6.175 TFLOPS FP32, and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for current games, GPU rendering, and compute tasks, while the K4200’s 4 GB and 2.107 TFLOPS are relics of an earlier era. The RX 580’s 53rd percentile rank versus the K4200’s 52nd might suggest parity, but that ranking is based on different test suites; the head-to-head results expose the true gap.

For the buyer, the RX 580 is the obvious choice for anyone needing performance, whether for gaming, content creation, or general compute. Its higher power draw (185 W) and dual-slot footprint are acceptable trade-offs for the massive performance advantage. The K4200 remains only for specific legacy workstation scenarios where the single-slot form factor, 108 W TDP, and PCIe 2.0 compatibility are non-negotiable, and where software requires NVIDIA’s older Kepler drivers. Even then, the K4200’s lack of FP16 and lower Vulkan version limit its utility. The verdict: pick the RX 580 for performance; pick the K4200 only if your system physically cannot accommodate anything else.