AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits decisively in favor of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT, which takes both head-to-head tests against the NVIDIA Quadro K4200. The most dramatic gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Radeon scores 74,869 against the Quadro’s 12,313 — a 508% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it represents a generational chasm in raw compute throughput, reflecting the RX 7600M XT’s modern RDNA 3.0 design versus the Kepler-era Quadro.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD part again wins, posting 27,793 versus 12,482, a 122.7% delta. This is notable because Vulkan is a lower-level API that tends to reward modern architectures with better draw-call handling and asynchronous compute. The Quadro K4200’s Kepler architecture predates Vulkan’s release, and its driver support tops out at Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7600M XT also claims both wins in the overall wins tally (2–0), leaving the Quadro without a single benchmark victory in this comparison.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the same narrative: the Radeon sits at 12,710 average, while the Quadro manages 12,398. Both land in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, which is remarkable — it means the ancient Quadro, despite its compute deficit, holds its own in aggregate because its few available benchmarks skew toward compatibility rather than raw throughput. However, the RX 7600M XT’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 670 (avg 12,773, delta -0.5%) and Tesla K20Xm (avg 12,625, delta +0.7%), placing it in a tight cluster. The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the same Tesla K20Xm (delta -1.8%) and GTX 670 (delta -2.9%), but also the RX 7600M XT itself (delta -2.5%), confirming that the AMD part is the stronger of the two by a small margin in aggregate.

For use-case segmentation, the RX 7600M XT is the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads — think GPGPU tasks, rendering, or scientific simulation — where its 20.23 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the Quadro’s 2.107 TFLOPS. The Quadro K4200, by contrast, offers no compute advantage anywhere in the data; its lone strengths are legacy compatibility (DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, not 12_2) and a single-slot form factor that may suit older workstation chassis. But in every measurable performance metric, the Radeon wins outright.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans nearly a decade of silicon evolution. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT uses the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, packing 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die — a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, with 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, yielding just 12.0 million transistors per mm². That density difference (65.2 vs 12.0 M/mm²) explains why the Radeon delivers over six times the transistor count in a smaller package.

The RDNA 3.0 architecture brings 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 32 dedicated ray tracing cores — a feature the Kepler-based Quadro lacks entirely. The RX 7600M XT also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (40.45 TFLOPS), while the Quadro has no FP16 path listed. The Radeon’s clock speeds are dramatically higher: base 1280 MHz, boost 2469 MHz, and game clock 2023 MHz, versus the Quadro’s 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. That boost clock delta (2469 vs 784 MHz) is a 3.15x difference, compounding the architectural efficiency gains.

Memory subsystems differ just as sharply. The Radeon runs 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), yielding 172.8 GB/s. Despite the Quadro’s wider bus, the Radeon’s faster memory clocks produce 67% more bandwidth. The Radeon also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16 — a four-generation gap in interconnect bandwidth.

Feature-wise, the Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 at the lower 11_0 feature level, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Ray tracing, hardware-accelerated on the Radeon via its 32 RT cores, is absent on the Quadro. Power delivery differs too: the Radeon is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 120 W TDP, while the Quadro is a single-slot card requiring one 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, drawing 108 W. The Quadro measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall; the Radeon has no listed dimensions because it is designed to be soldered onto a laptop motherboard.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT delivers 20.23 TFLOPS FP32, versus 2.107 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 — a 9.6x difference in theoretical peak performance.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro K4200 has no ray tracing cores, while the Radeon RX 7600M XT includes 32 dedicated RT cores as part of its RDNA 3.0 architecture.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Radeon RX 7600M XT offers 288.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, compared to the Quadro’s 172.8 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. However, the Radeon’s average benchmark score is 12,710 versus 12,398 for the Quadro, and the Radeon wins both head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Radeon uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The Quadro uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Does the Quadro support modern APIs?

A: It supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

# Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1280 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2469 MHz | 784 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2023 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1344 |

| TMUs | 128 | 112 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 32 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 158.0 GPixel/s | 21.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 316.0 GTexel/s | 87.81 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 20.23 TFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 40.45 TFLOPS (2:1) | N/A |

| TDP | 120 W | 108 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2014-07-21 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | N/A | Quadro Maxwell |

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmarks in the database both favor the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT by wide margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon scores 74,869 against the Quadro’s 12,313 — a 508% delta. This is the single largest performance gap in the comparison and reflects the fundamental architectural divide. The Radeon’s 2048 shading units operating at up to 2469 MHz, combined with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, produce compute results that the Quadro’s 1344 shading units at 784 MHz and 172.8 GB/s cannot approach. For context, the Quadro’s OpenCL score is closer to the Radeon’s Vulkan score (12,482) than to the Radeon’s OpenCL score — meaning the Quadro’s best result is still less than half of the Radeon’s worst result in this pairing.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon posts 27,793 versus the Quadro’s 12,482, a 122.7% delta. While narrower than the OpenCL gap, this still represents a decisive victory. Vulkan’s low-overhead nature tends to reward modern hardware with better command processing and asynchronous compute capabilities. The Radeon’s Vulkan 1.4 support and RDNA 3.0 architecture handle the API’s parallelism efficiently, while the Quadro’s Vulkan 1.2.175 support on Kepler hardware is a compatibility afterthought rather than a performance feature.

The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals lists contextualize these results. The Radeon’s average score of 12,710 is within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 670 (12,773) and 0.7% above the Tesla K20Xm (12,625), placing it in a tight performance band. The Quadro’s average of 12,398 sits 1.8% below the Tesla K20Xm and 2.5% below the Radeon itself. This means that while the Radeon is only marginally faster than the Quadro in aggregate benchmarks, the head-to-head tests reveal where the Radeon truly excels — compute-heavy workloads. The Quadro’s 52nd percentile ranking, identical to the Radeon’s, is a statistical artifact of having only two benchmark entries, both of which it loses decisively.

The wins tally (2–0) leaves no ambiguity. The Radeon RX 7600M XT outperforms the Quadro K4200 in every measurable shared test, with deltas ranging from 122.7% to 508%. The Quadro’s only advantages are historical: it is a single-slot, 108 W card with a 256-bit bus from an era when workstation GPUs prioritized compatibility over raw speed. In 2025 terms, the data shows a modern mobile RDNA 3.0 part crushing a legacy Kepler workstation card by every metric that matters for compute and graphics performance.