AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT occupy vastly different eras of graphics hardware, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm. In the shared head-to-head tests, the AMD card wins both outright, with the most dramatic gap appearing in Vulkan workloads. The Quadro K4200, a Kepler-based workstation card from NVIDIA, manages a 12,313 score in Geekbench OpenCL, while the RX 9070 XT posts 17,428, a 29.3% advantage for the AMD part. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: the RX 9070 XT scores 65,879 against the Quadro’s 12,482, which translates to an 81.1% deficit for the older NVIDIA card. These results indicate that the RX 9070 XT is not merely faster but operates in a different performance class, particularly in modern API environments where its RDNA 4.0 architecture can flex its full feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two Geekbench tests provide the only direct comparison points, and the data is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT achieves 17,428 points, outperforming the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,313 by 29.3%. This is a substantial margin, but it is not the story’s headline. The Geekbench Vulkan result is where the architecture gap becomes a canyon: the RX 9070 XT scores 65,879, which is 81.1% higher than the Quadro’s 12,482. The Vulkan test stresses modern graphics pipelines, and the Quadro K4200, with its 2014-era Kepler design, simply cannot keep pace with the RX 9070 XT’s dedicated ray accelerators and newer instruction sets.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the RX 9070 XT posts 13,543 across its full suite, which includes DirectX 9 through 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, and compute tests. The Quadro K4200’s average, derived from just two OpenCL and Vulkan runs, sits at 12,398. This places the Quadro at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 9070 XT lands at the 55th percentile. The percentile difference is modest, but the raw score gap in the head-to-head tests is decisive. The RX 9070 XT’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7770M, scores 13,536, a delta of just 0.1%, meaning the RX 9070 XT is essentially tied with that mobile chip in average terms. The Quadro K4200, by contrast, sits 1.8% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625) and 2.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710). These comparisons show that while the Quadro is competitive with its immediate peers, the RX 9070 XT is pulling away from the pack in absolute terms.

The delta percentages in the head-to-head table tell a clear story: the RX 9070 XT wins both tests, and the margin in Vulkan is staggering. The Quadro K4200’s best showing is relative, not absolute—it trails by 29.3% in OpenCL, which is a respectable gap for a card from a different decade. However, the 81.1% deficit in Vulkan suggests that the Quadro’s driver support and hardware capabilities are not optimized for modern low-level APIs. For users running legacy OpenCL workloads, the Quadro is still functional, but for any Vulkan-based application, the RX 9070 XT is in a different league.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT leads with an average benchmark score of 13,543, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 averages 12,398. This puts the RX 9070 XT at the 55th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro’s 52nd.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: The RX 9070 XT scores 65,879 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 81.1% higher than the Quadro K4200’s 12,482. This is the largest delta between the two cards in any shared test.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 win any benchmark against the RX 9070 XT?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RX 9070 XT wins both. The Quadro’s win count is zero, while the RX 9070 XT has two wins.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 9070 XT offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but with 644.6 GB/s bandwidth—a 3.7x increase in total bandwidth.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The Quadro K4200 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The RX 9070 XT uses a 4 nm TSMC process with 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0M per mm² versus the Quadro’s 12.0M per mm².

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 9070 XT achieves 380.2 GPixel/s, while the Quadro K4200 manages 21.95 GPixel/s. The RX 9070 XT also leads in texture rate at 760.3 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT wins in every measurable category where both cards have data. In compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, it is 29.3% ahead, which is significant for applications like rendering or scientific simulation. The Vulkan advantage is even more pronounced, making the RX 9070 XT the clear choice for modern game engines, ray-traced titles, or any workload leveraging DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The RX 9070 XT’s 16 GB of VRAM also provides headroom for high-resolution textures or large datasets, a capability the Quadro K4200’s 4 GB cannot match.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200, despite losing both head-to-head tests, retains relevance in one specific context: legacy compatibility. Its Kepler architecture supports OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12 (11_0), which covers older professional applications. Its single-slot design and 108 W TDP make it a low-power option for systems where space and thermals are constrained. However, its 2.107 TFLOPS FP32 performance is a fraction of the RX 9070 XT’s 48.66 TFLOPS, so any modern workload will favor the AMD card. The Quadro’s closest rivals include the Tesla K20Xm (1.8% faster) and the GTX 960A (3.3% slower), indicating it sits in a narrow performance band. For users locked into Kepler-era drivers or needing a basic display adapter with DVI and DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, the Quadro still works—but it is not a competitive option for current-generation tasks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every hardware specification. The Quadro K4200 uses a GK104 chip on a 28 nm process, while the RX 9070 XT uses Navi 48 on 4 nm. Transistor counts are stark: 3,540 million for the Quadro versus 53,900 million for the RX 9070 XT. Clock speeds also diverge wildly—the Quadro’s base is 771 MHz with a 784 MHz boost, while the RX 9070 XT runs at 1660 MHz base, 2400 MHz game clock, and 2970 MHz boost. Memory is another major split: 4 GB GDDR5 at 5.4 Gbps effective versus 16 GB GDDR6 at 20.1 Gbps effective. Bandwidth jumps from 172.8 GB/s to 644.6 GB/s.

The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the RX 9070 XT: 4096 versus 1344 shading units, 256 versus 112 TMUs, and 128 versus 32 ROPs. The RX 9070 XT also adds 64 ray accelerators, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. FP32 throughput is 48.66 TFLOPS for the AMD card versus 2.107 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card, and the RX 9070 XT supports FP16 at 48.66 TFLOPS (1:1), whereas the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. Power requirements differ accordingly: the Quadro draws 108 W with a 300 W suggested PSU, while the RX 9070 XT draws 304 W and needs a 700 W PSU. The bus interface also moves from PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro to PCIe 5.0 x16 on the RX 9070 XT. Display outputs are distinct, with the Quadro offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, and the RX 9070 XT providing 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between Kepler and RDNA 4.0 explains the performance disparity. The Quadro K4200’s Kepler architecture, introduced in 2014, was designed for the DirectX 11 era and uses a 28 nm process. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, relying on 1344 shading units for all compute. The RX 9070 XT, built on RDNA 4.0, is a 4 nm design that includes 64 ray accelerators, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing. This is a fundamental capability difference: the Quadro can only approximate such effects via compute shaders, which is why its Vulkan score is so low.

The transistor density tells the story of manufacturing evolution. The Quadro packs 12.0M transistors per mm², while the RX 9070 XT achieves 151.0M per mm²—a 12.6x increase in density. This allows the RX 9070 XT to fit 53,900 million transistors into a die only 63 mm² larger than the Quadro’s. The API support also reflects generational progress: the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0), while the RX 9070 XT supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The latter includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, which are absent from the older card. The RX 9070 XT’s FP16 support at 1:1 ratio is another modern addition, enabling faster machine learning inference and certain media workloads. The Quadro’s OpenGL 4.6 support is matched by the RX 9070 XT, but in every other API category, the AMD card is newer and more capable. Finally, the production status differs—the Quadro is end-of-life, while the RX 9070 XT is active, with a launch MSRP of 599 USD.