AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear victory for the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 12,525 against the Quadro K4200's 12,313, a 1.7% advantage. The AMD card takes the Geekbench Vulkan test by a larger margin, scoring 13,543 against 12,482, an 8.5% lead for the Vega 11. While the OpenCL delta is modest, the Vulkan delta is a decisive gap, indicating the AMD architecture scales more effectively in that API workload. The Vulkan score differential is the strongest single metric in the comparison, doubling the AMD card's advantage from a narrow edge to a substantial one. The Quadro K4200 secures no wins in either shared test, leaving the head-to-head tally at 2 wins for the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 and 0 for the NVIDIA Quadro Card.

The average benchmark score, which incorporates the Vega 11's Metal result as well as the two shared tests, places the AMD at 14,385, putting it 16.0% ahead of the Quadro's 12,398 average. The Quadro's OpenCL score of 12,313 is 1.7% behind the Tesla K20Xm, demonstrating the K4200's closest rival, and 3.3% ahead of the GTX 960A, its lower nearest rival. The NVIDIA card's Vulkan score of 12,482 is 2.9% behind the GTX 960A, its nearest rival.

The database percentile ranking reinforces this: the Vega 11 holds a 56th percentile against all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 52nd percentile. This 4 percentile gap is small in absolute terms, but on the Vulkan test, where the AMD leads by 8.5%, the ranking difference is more meaningful in the context of the field. The data suggests the Radeon's margin in Vulkan is not a fluke, but a consistent pattern across its API support set.

The AMD's peak theoretical FP32 of 1.971 TFLOPS is a surprisingly close match to the Quadro's 2.107 TFLOPS, the NVIDIA card actually holds a 6.9% theoretical compute edge. This makes the Vega's benchmark wins more notable: it achieves higher real-world scores despite a lower raw FP32 ceiling. The texture rate is closer than the FP32 gap would suggest, with the Quadro at 87.81 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s, a 42.5% NVIDIA advantage. Yet the AMD's higher clock behavior, from a 300 MHz base to a 1400 MHz boost, likely compensates in the recorded tests. The pixel rate again favors NVIDIA, 21.95 GPixel/s to 11.20 GPixel/s, a 96% lead, but this does not translate into a benchmark win for the Quadro.

The FP16 capability is exclusive to the AMD part at 3.980 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. This differential does not appear in the benchmark tests, but it does indicate a broader compute feature set for the Vega 11. The thermal envelope is where the cards diverge severely: the AMD at a 15 W TDP is 86.1% lower than NVIDIA's 108 W, a massive difference in power draw that affects where and how each card can be deployed.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the Radeon RX Vega 11 is the pick for scenarios that rely on modern API-driven workloads. Its 8.5% Vulkan margin over the Quadro and 1.6% average score lead point to a card that tracks with a 56th percentile ranking against all GPUs in compute-style workloads. The 2 wins in the head-to-head tests, combined with 0.1% average score delta to its nearest rival, the GTX TITAN, and 0.1% behind the GTX 965M, show a card that is competitive with a broad range of other chips, positioned right at the 56th percentile of all GPUs.

The Quadro K4200 should be chosen when its specific feature set aligns with a task the data supports, such as a 172.8 GB/s bandwidth or a 4 GB allocation, which are fixed hardware resources. The NVIDIA card's 2.107 TFLOPS FP32 peak, while higher than the Vega 11 by 6.9%, does not result in a benchmark win, so a user would be trading away the AMD's Vulkan and OpenCL advantages for a compute edge that is theoretical only in the data as recorded. The Quadro's OpenCL score of 12,313, 1.8% behind the Tesla K20Xm, and its nearest rival at 2.5% ahead of the RX 7600M XT, shows that the NVIDIA card's 52nd percentile stands on its own in a narrower field of 52nd percentile chips.

If the workload requires a low-power solution, the Vega 11 at a 15 W TDP is the only viable option in the data. The Quadro's 108 W TDP is a 7.2x increase over the AMD part's power draw, and the Vega 11's IGP interface and lack of power connectors mean it is a fundamentally different class of compute hardware. The NVIDIA Quadro Kepler with a 9.1% lower thermal envelope for the Vega 100% higher power draw is not a comparison; it is a qualitative chasm in power efficiency.

The FP16 support at 2:1 ratio is exclusive to the AMD card, adding a 3.980 TFLOPS FP32 compute path that NVIDIA does not offer, widening the Vega's feature set for compute tasks that leverage FP16 instructions. The Vega 11 is the better overall benchmark performer from the head-to-head data, but the Quadro K4200 is the only card with a 172.8 GB/s bandwidth figure, a fixed memory bandwidth that suits workloads that rely on memory throughput, not a trade-off for the Vega 11's system-dependent bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture using a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries, a newer node than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200's 28 nm TSMC process. The Vega 11's Picasso chip packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die size, resulting in a 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter density, a 95% higher density than the Quadro's 12.0M per mm² density. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die size, meaning the AMD chip has 40.0% more transistors on a 71.7% smaller die size, a tradeoff of density versus area.

The AMD card has 704 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro offers 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA card's 1344 shading units are 90.9% more than the AMD's 704. The clock speeds differ: AMD's base 300 MHz boost 1400 MHz versus NVIDIA's 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. The AMD boost clock is 78.6% higher than the NVIDIA boost clock, a massive difference in clock behavior. The memory setups are entirely distinct: the Vega 11 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The bus interface is IGP for AMD versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA, and the Vega 11's display outputs are motherboard dependent, while the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support shows the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX feature level difference is notable, as the AMD card's 12_1 support is a higher feature level than NVIDIA's 11_0. The production status is end-of-life for both cards. The release dates differ, with the AMD launching in 2019 and NVIDIA in 2019, though the Quadro K4200's release date is 2014-07-21. The NVIDIA card is a single-slot design with dimensions of 241 mm length and 111 mm height, and it requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a 1x 6-pin power connector.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 has an average score of 14,385, while the Quadro K4200 has 12,398, a 16.0% difference.

Q: How does the AMD card's Vulkan performance compare to the NVIDIA card?

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 scores 13,543 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 8.5% higher than the Quadro K4200's 12,482.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the Quadro K4200?

The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD card support FP16 compute?

Yes, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 has FP16 performance of 3.942 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro K4200 does not list FP16 support.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 has a 15 W TDP, while the Quadro K4200 has a 108 W TDP, making the AMD card an 86.1% lower power draw.

Q: What is the API feature level difference?

The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the AMD card has a higher feature level.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 wins in raw throughput for the modern API tests, taking a 1.7% lead in OpenCL and an 8.5% lead in Vulkan. The 12 nm process node and a 95% higher transistor density are the reasons behind its efficiency. The Vega 11 also wins on API feature support, with DirectX 12 (12_1) over the Quadro's 11_0, and Vulkan 1.3 over 1.2.175. The Vega 11's 3.942 TFLOPS FP16 capability is a feature the Quadro lacks entirely, giving the AMD card an edge in workloads that use FP16 arithmetic. Its 56th percentile ranking against all GPUs is 4 points higher than the Quadro's 52nd percentile, a small but clear ranking advantage.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 wins on raw compute peak, with 2.107 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Vega 11's 1.971 TFLOPS, a 6.9% advantage. It also has a significant edge in texture rate, 87.81 GTexel/s versus 61.60 GTexel/s, a 42.5% lead, and pixel rate, 21.95 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s, a 96% lead. The Quadro has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, which outnumber the AMD's 704, 44, and 8, respectively. The Quadro has a fixed 172.8 GB/s memory bandwidth with a 256 bit bus, versus the Vega 11's system dependent bandwidth. The Quadro's single-slot design and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface are its own advantages, and it is a 4 GB GDDR5 card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 is a 12 nm part from GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is a 28 nm part from TSMC. The transistor count is 4,940 million for the AMD and 3,540 million for the NVIDIA, with die sizes of 210 mm² and 294 mm² respectively, giving a 23.5M / mm² versus a 12.0M / mm² transistor density. The base clock is 300 MHz for the AMD versus 771 MHz for the NVIDIA, and the boost clock is 1400 MHz for the AMD versus 784 MHz for the NVIDIA. The AMD has 704 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the NVIDIA has 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 11.20 GPixel/s for the AMD versus 21.95 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA, and texture rate is 61.60 GTexel/s for the AMD versus 87.81 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA. FP32 is 1.971 TFLOPS for the AMD versus 2.107 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA, and FP16 is 3.942 TFLOPS for the AMD versus null for the NVIDIA. The TDP is 15 W for the AMD versus 108 W for the NVIDIA. The bus interface is IGP for the AMD versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the NVIDIA. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the AMD versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the NVIDIA. The API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_1) for the AMD versus 12 (11_0) for the NVIDIA, Vulkan 1.3 for the AMD versus 1.2.175 for the NVIDIA.