AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows that the RX 7800 XT dominates in every measured benchmark, but the comparison is not merely about performance; it reveals fundamental shifts in compute, rendering, and API support. The K4200, a Kepler-generation workstation card from 2014, holds a 52nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the newer RX 7800 XT sits at the 51st percentile, a statistical near-tie in overall standing despite the massive generational gap. This page breaks down where each card wins, the architectural chasm between them, and what the raw numbers mean for different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is the unequivocal winner in both tests conducted. It secures victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 18,290 against the K4200’s 12,313, a delta of -32.7% from the perspective of the older card. The margin is even more pronounced in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RX 7800 XT scores 54,228 compared to the K4200’s 12,482, a staggering -77% delta. There are zero wins for the Quadro K4200 in any shared benchmark, meaning its use-case is strictly limited to legacy compatibility or scenarios where its specific feature set—not raw performance—is required.

The RX 7800 XT’s wins are not confined to the head-to-head list; its broader benchmark suite shows strengths across DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests via Passmark, with scores of 121, 249, and 93 respectively. It also posts a Passmark G3D score of 24,176 and a GPU compute score of 13,473, indicating strong general-purpose compute and rasterization performance. The K4200, by contrast, only has OpenCL and Vulkan scores available, lacking any DirectX or Passmark data, which limits its profile to compute-centric or API-specific workloads. In practice, the RX 7800 XT wins for any modern gaming, rendering, or compute task, while the K4200’s only conceivable advantage is its lower power draw and single-slot form factor, which are qualitative benefits not reflected in benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different silicon. The K4200 uses the GK104 chip on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The RX 7800 XT, in contrast, uses the Navi 32 chip on AMD’s RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer node allows for 28,100 million transistors in a 346 mm² die, achieving a density of 81.2M per mm²—nearly seven times denser. This density difference explains how the RX 7800 XT fits vastly more compute hardware into a similar physical footprint.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of evolution. The K4200 runs at a base of 771 MHz and a boost of 784 MHz, while the RX 7800 XT operates at a 1,295 MHz base and 2,430 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2,124 MHz. Memory also diverges sharply: the K4200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the RX 7800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus but achieves 624.1 GB/s. The shading units scale from 1,344 on the K4200 to 3,840 on the RX 7800 XT, with TMUs jumping from 112 to 240 and ROPs from 32 to 96. The RX 7800 XT also introduces 60 ray-tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler design.

The feature set extends to APIs and I/O. The K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the RX 7800 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7800 XT also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 37.32 TFLOPS, while the K4200 only lists FP32 at 2.107 TFLOPS. The bus interface differs as well: the K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the RX 7800 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Power and physical requirements also diverge—the K4200 is a single-slot card with a 108 W TDP and a 1x 6-pin connector, while the RX 7800 XT is dual-slot, rated at 263 W, and requires 2x 8-pin connectors. The suggested PSU scales from 300 W to 600 W accordingly.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two directly comparable benchmark results are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and both show the RX 7800 XT winning by large margins. In OpenCL, the RX 7800 XT scores 18,290 against the K4200’s 12,313, a 32.7% advantage. This test primarily measures compute throughput, and the RX 7800 XT’s higher shading unit count and clock speed translate directly into a significant lead. The K4200’s score of 12,313 places it near its average benchmark score of 12,398, suggesting this is a representative workload for the older card.

The Vulkan test is where the gap becomes canyon-like. The RX 7800 XT scores 54,228, which is 4.3 times higher than the K4200’s 12,482. This 77% delta indicates that the RX 7800 XT’s architecture is far better optimized for modern, low-level graphics APIs. The K4200’s Vulkan score of 12,482 is actually slightly higher than its OpenCL score, but that is cold comfort given the RX 7800 XT’s dominance. For context, the K4200’s nearest rivals in average score include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625) and the GeForce GTX 670 (12,773), both of which are within 3% of its performance. The RX 7800 XT’s nearest rivals, by contrast, include the GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680) and the Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842), showing that its average score of 11,627 is actually pulled down by other benchmarks. The head-to-head results, however, are unambiguous: the RX 7800 XT is the only viable option for Vulkan or OpenCL workloads requiring high throughput.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is the superior card in every measurable benchmark category shared with the NVIDIA Quadro K4200. For any user prioritizing raw compute or graphics performance, the RX 7800 XT is the only choice, offering 32.7% higher OpenCL scores and 77% higher Vulkan scores. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory versus the K4200’s 4 GB GDDR5 also makes it suitable for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures, though this is a qualitative benefit not captured in the benchmark numbers. The RX 7800 XT’s active production status, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and ray-tracing cores make it future-proof for years to come, whereas the K4200 is end-of-life and limited to legacy DirectX 12 (11_0) support.

However, the K4200 is not without a niche. Its 108 W TDP and single-slot design mean it can fit into space-constrained or power-sensitive systems where the RX 7800 XT’s 263 W TDP and dual-slot footprint would be prohibitive. The K4200 also has a lower suggested PSU of 300 W versus 600 W, making it a drop-in upgrade for older workstations. But these are practical considerations, not performance advantages. The benchmark data shows the K4200’s average score of 12,398 is within 3% of the Tesla K20Xm and GTX 670, meaning it is a competent card for its era, but that era has passed. For anyone building a system today, the RX 7800 XT’s launch MSRP of 499 USD (stated once here) positions it as a modern mid-range performer, while the K4200 has no MSRP data and is firmly in legacy territory. The verdict is straightforward: the RX 7800 XT wins on performance, features, and longevity; the K4200 wins only on power efficiency and physical footprint.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT scores 54,228 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,482, a 77% lead for the RX 7800 XT.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 7800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the RX 7800 XT’s bandwidth is 624.1 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s for the K4200.

Q: Are these cards comparable in power consumption?

A: No. The K4200 has a 108 W TDP and requires a 300 W suggested PSU with a single 6-pin connector, while the RX 7800 XT has a 263 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses 2x 8-pin connectors.

Q: Does the RX 7800 XT support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 60 ray-tracing cores. The K4200 has no ray-tracing cores, as its Kepler architecture predates that technology.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput (FP32)?

A: The RX 7800 XT delivers 37.32 TFLOPS FP32, while the K4200 delivers 2.107 TFLOPS. The RX 7800 XT also offers FP16 at 37.32 TFLOPS, a feature the K4200 does not list.

Q: How do their production statuses differ?

A: The K4200 is end-of-life and was released in 2014, while the RX 7800 XT is active and was released in 2023. The RX 7800 XT has a successor (Navi IV) listed, whereas the K4200’s successor is Quadro Maxwell.