AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture in favor of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD part wins both, leaving the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 without a single victory. The margin is substantial in each case.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586 points, while the Quadro K4200 manages 12,313 points. This represents a delta of -68.1% from the perspective of the NVIDIA card, meaning the AMD GPU delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap is even more pronounced in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Radeon RX 6500M reaches 43,837 points against the Quadro K4200's 12,482 points, a -71.5% delta. This indicates that the Radeon part's advantage grows slightly in API-level performance, likely reflecting its more modern architecture and driver optimization for contemporary graphics interfaces.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K4200's average benchmark score is 12,398, which places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm with an average score of 12,625 (-1.8% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 (-2.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 at 12,773 (-2.9%). On the other side, the GeForce GTX 960A trails it by 3.3% with a score of 11,998. This clustering suggests the Quadro K4200 sits in a narrow performance band where small differences separate adjacent products.

The Radeon RX 6500M, by contrast, holds an average benchmark score of 10,362, which places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 at 10,400 (-0.4%), the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481 (-1.1%), and the Radeon R9 M275X at 10,582 (-2.1%). The GeForce GTX 950A trails by 0.9% with a score of 10,273. Interestingly, despite the Radeon RX 6500M winning both head-to-head tests decisively, its average score across all recorded benchmarks is lower than the Quadro K4200's average. This discrepancy stems from the Radeon part's inclusion of additional Passmark tests, which drag down its overall average. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 92, DirectX 10 score of 52, DirectX 11 score of 70, DirectX 12 score of 34, and G2D score of 385 all contribute to a lower composite, even though the G3D score of 7,531 and GPU compute score of 2,669 are respectable for a mobile part.

What stands out is that the two Geekbench tests, which are the only direct comparisons available, show the Radeon RX 6500M at roughly 2.1 to 3.5 times the raw scores of the Quadro K4200. The OpenCL delta of -68.1% and Vulkan delta of -71.5% both indicate a massive performance gulf. The data does not show any workload in the head-to-head set where the Quadro K4200 comes out ahead, making the overall comparison one-sided.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins decisively, scoring 38,586 versus the NVIDIA Quadro K4200's 12,313, a delta of -68.1% from the Quadro's perspective.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon RX 6500M in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Radeon RX 6500M scores 43,837 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the Quadro K4200's 12,482, which is a -71.5% delta, indicating a roughly 3.5 times advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the AMD Radeon RX 6500M have 4 GB of video memory, though the Quadro uses GDDR5 while the Radeon uses GDDR6.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Radeon RX 6500M's Navi 24 chip has a transistor density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro K4200's GK104 chip has a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has a significantly higher boost clock at 2400 MHz, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4200's boost of 784 MHz.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K4200 was released on 2014-07-21 and the Radeon RX 6500M on 2022-01-03, and neither is currently in active production.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, which is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The architecture generation is listed as Quadro Kepler (Kx200), and its predecessor in the product stack was Quadro Fermi, with Quadro Maxwell as the successor.

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M, on the other hand, uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip packs 5,400 million transistors into a much smaller die of 107 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter, over four times the density of the Kepler chip. The generation is listed as Navi Mobile (RX 6000M), with Polaris Mobile as its predecessor and no successor listed in the database.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Quadro K4200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon RX 6500M also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s. The narrower bus is compensated by the faster memory clock of 18 Gbps effective versus 5.4 Gbps effective, but the overall bandwidth still falls short of the older NVIDIA card.

The compute configurations also diverge. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Radeon RX 6500M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but it includes 16 ray tracing cores. The absence of tensor cores in both parts is notable. The pixel rate of the Radeon is 76.80 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and the texture rate is 153.6 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 4.915 TFLOPS for the Radeon versus 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro, and the Radeon also lists FP16 at 9.830 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the Quadro does not list.

The API support reflects the generational gap. The Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer DirectX 12 Ultimate tier and higher Vulkan version on the AMD side indicate support for more modern rendering features.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ dramatically. The Quadro K4200 has a base clock of 771 MHz and a boost clock of 784 MHz, while the Radeon RX 6500M has a base of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2191 MHz. The memory clock is 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the Radeon.

The power profiles are starkly different. The Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, is a single-slot card, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Radeon RX 6500M has a TDP of only 50 W, is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no slot width, requires no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU. This makes the Radeon part substantially more power-efficient for mobile deployments.

The bus interfaces differ: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The display outputs are also different: the Quadro provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its outputs depend on the laptop or device it is integrated into.

Physical dimensions are only provided for the Quadro K4200, which is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The Radeon RX 6500M has no listed dimensions due to its integrated nature. The release dates are far apart: the Quadro launched on 2014-07-21, and the Radeon on 2022-01-03. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The data records zero benchmark wins for the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 in the head-to-head set. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins both recorded tests, making it the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan performance. In OpenCL, the Radeon's 38,586 score versus 12,313 indicates it is the stronger compute card for general-purpose GPU workloads. In Vulkan, the 43,837 versus 12,482 result reinforces that advantage for modern graphics APIs.

The Quadro K4200 does hold advantages in certain specification areas that could matter in specific use cases. It has a wider 256-bit memory bus compared to the 64-bit bus on the Radeon, and higher memory bandwidth at 172.8 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s. For workloads that are highly sensitive to memory bandwidth rather than raw compute throughput, the Quadro could theoretically perform better, though no benchmark in the database confirms this. Its 112 TMUs versus 64 on the Radeon also give it a higher texture processing count per clock, though the Radeon's much higher clock speeds overcome this in the recorded texture rate.

The Quadro's desktop form factor with dedicated display outputs (DVI and DisplayPort 1.2) makes it suitable for fixed workstation setups where multiple monitors are required. The Radeon RX 6500M, being an integrated mobile part with device-dependent outputs, is designed for laptops and portable systems where space and power are constrained. The Quadro's 108 W TDP and single-slot design are more demanding than the Radeon's 50 W TDP and no power connector requirement.

For compute density, the Radeon RX 6500M is the clear winner. Its FP32 throughput of 4.915 TFLOPS is more than double the Quadro's 2.107 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability of 9.830 TFLOPS is a feature the Quadro does not offer. The Radeon's 76.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 153.6 GTexel/s texture rate also dwarf the Quadro's 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leads to a straightforward conclusion. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the superior GPU for modern compute and graphics workloads, winning both head-to-head tests with deltas of -68.1% in OpenCL and -71.5% in Vulkan. Its significantly higher clock speeds, newer architecture, higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 make it the more capable part for contemporary software.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200, despite its age and architectural limitations, still holds relevance in specific contexts. Its wider memory bus and higher bandwidth could be advantageous for memory-bound tasks, and its desktop form factor with dedicated display outputs suits fixed workstation environments. Its 52nd percentile ranking versus the Radeon's 48th percentile also indicates that, across the entire database of recorded benchmarks, the Quadro's average score is actually higher at 12,398 versus 10,362, though this is influenced by the different test sets each card was subjected to.

Users who need maximum compute performance, especially in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, should choose the AMD Radeon RX 6500M without hesitation. The recorded data shows it is between roughly 2.1 and 3.5 times faster in these tests. Users who require a desktop workstation card with multiple display outputs, a wider memory bus, and higher memory bandwidth, and who do not need the latest API features, could still consider the Quadro K4200, but they should be aware that its raw performance in modern workloads is substantially lower.

The power efficiency story also favors the Radeon. At 50 W TDP with no power connectors required, it delivers over double the FP32 performance of the Quadro while consuming less than half the power. For mobile applications, the choice is clear. For desktop workstations with adequate power supply and cooling, the Quadro's specific advantages in memory bandwidth and display connectivity remain its only documented strengths, but the overall benchmark record indicates the Radeon RX 6500M is the more capable GPU.