NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two NVIDIA workstation and consumer cards, though the recorded measurements are limited to two compute-oriented tests. The GeForce GTX 1070 Ti wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks decisively, making it the clear choice for OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads. The Quadro K4200 does not win any of the recorded tests, but it remains relevant in scenarios where its single-slot form factor and lower power envelope matter more than raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader database averages, the GTX 1070 Ti posts an average benchmark score of 14277 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro K4200 averages 12398. That difference of roughly 15% in average score reflects the generational gap between the two architectures. The GTX 1070 Ti sits at the 56th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile. These percentile positions are close, but the average score gap shows that the GTX 1070 Ti consistently outperforms the Quadro in compute-heavy tasks.

For users running Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the GTX 1070 Ti is the only rational choice based on the data. The Vulkan score advantage is particularly stark, with the GTX 1070 Ti delivering 388.8% higher performance. The OpenCL gap is slightly smaller but still massive at 299.7%. The Quadro K4200's only advantage lies in its physical and power characteristics, which are not captured in compute benchmark scores but may matter in dense workstation builds.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The GTX 1070 Ti uses the GP104 chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip built on the older Kepler architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This process difference is substantial: the Pascal chip packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Kepler chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ accordingly. The GTX 1070 Ti has 2432 shading units, 152 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Quadro K4200 has 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Pascal card more than doubles the shading unit count and doubles the ROP count. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the GTX 1070 Ti runs at a base clock of 1607 MHz with a boost clock of 1683 MHz, while the Quadro K4200 runs at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost, less than half the frequency.

Memory configurations show both similarities and differences. Both cards use GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but the GTX 1070 Ti has 8 GB of memory running at 2002 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, yielding 256.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of memory at 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective speed, producing 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pascal card offers double the capacity and roughly 48% more bandwidth.

Compute throughput numbers reflect the architectural gap. The GTX 1070 Ti delivers 8.186 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 107.7 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 255.8 GTexel/s texture rate. The Quadro K4200 delivers 2.107 TFLOPS FP32, 21.95 GPixel/s, and 87.81 GTexel/s. The Pascal card is roughly 3.9 times faster in FP32, 4.9 times faster in pixel fill, and 2.9 times faster in texture fill. The GTX 1070 Ti also supports FP16 at 127.9 GFLOPS, while the Quadro K4200 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Feature support also differs. The GTX 1070 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Pascal card has a more recent DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. Display outputs differ as well: the GTX 1070 Ti offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro K4200 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The bus interface also differs, with PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Pascal card versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Kepler card.

Physical specifications show a trade-off. The Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card with a 108 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W power supply. The GTX 1070 Ti is a dual-slot card with a 180 W TDP and a single 8-pin connector, requiring a 450 W power supply. The Quadro is also shorter at 241 mm (9.5 inches) compared to 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the GTX 1070 Ti. Both cards are end-of-life products, with the GTX 1070 Ti released in November 2017 and the Quadro K4200 released in July 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these cards, both in Geekbench tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1070 Ti scores 49219 against the Quadro K4200's 12313, a difference of 299.7% in favor of the Pascal card. This means the GTX 1070 Ti delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute performance of the Quadro K4200. The margin is so large that it suggests the Quadro K4200 is simply outclassed for any modern OpenCL compute workload.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The GTX 1070 Ti scores 61006, while the Quadro K4200 scores 12482, giving the Pascal card a 388.8% advantage. The Vulkan result is notable not only for the magnitude of the difference but also because the GTX 1070 Ti's Vulkan score is 24% higher than its own OpenCL score, while the Quadro K4200's Vulkan score is only 1.4% higher than its OpenCL score. The newer architecture appears to extract more performance from the Vulkan API relative to OpenCL.

For context on the GTX 1070 Ti's standing, its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics with an average score of 14315 and a delta of -0.3%, the AMD Radeon Vega 11 at 14352 with -0.5%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14373 with -0.7%, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14385 with -0.7%. The GTX 1070 Ti's average of 14277 places it just below all four of these rivals, with the smallest gap being 0.3% behind the Intel part and the largest being 0.7% behind the two AMD Vega parts and the GTX TITAN. These are tight margins, indicating that the GTX 1070 Ti sits in a competitive cluster of GPUs from that era.

The Quadro K4200's nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight competition. The NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm averages 12625, which is 1.8% above the Quadro's 12398. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT averages 12710, 2.5% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 averages 12773, 2.9% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A averages 11998, which is 3.3% below the Quadro. The Quadro K4200 therefore sits in the middle of a cluster of older and mid-range GPUs, with its closest competitor being the Tesla K20Xm at just 1.8% above.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti scores 49219 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12313. The GTX 1070 Ti leads by 299.7%.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1070 Ti in Vulkan compute?

A: The GTX 1070 Ti scores 61006 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 12482 for the Quadro K4200, a 388.8% advantage for the Pascal card.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two cards?

A: The GTX 1070 Ti has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 256.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1070 Ti has a 180 W TDP, requires a 450 W power supply, and uses a single 8-pin power connector. The Quadro K4200 has a 108 W TDP, needs a 300 W power supply, and uses a single 6-pin connector.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 1070 Ti has an average benchmark score of 14277, while the Quadro K4200 averages 12398. The GTX 1070 Ti sits at the 56th percentile among all GPUs, and the Quadro K4200 at the 52nd percentile.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1070 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute performance: the GeForce GTX 1070 Ti dominates the Quadro K4200 in both recorded benchmarks. The 299.7% OpenCL advantage and the 388.8% Vulkan advantage are not marginal differences; they represent completely different performance classes. Anyone choosing between these two cards for OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads should select the GTX 1070 Ti without hesitation.

The Quadro K4200 retains a role only in scenarios where its physical and power characteristics are the primary concern. It is a single-slot card with a 108 W TDP and a 300 W power supply requirement, compared to the dual-slot GTX 1070 Ti with a 180 W TDP and a 450 W requirement. For dense multi-GPU workstation builds with strict power budgets and single-slot constraints, the Quadro K4200 may still fit where the GTX 1070 Ti cannot. Its 4 GB memory capacity, however, is half that of the GTX 1070 Ti, and its memory bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 256.3 GB/s.

The architectural gap explains everything. The Pascal-based GTX 1070 Ti on 16 nm packs more than double the transistors of the Kepler-based Quadro K4200 on 28 nm, runs at more than double the clock speed, and delivers roughly four times the FP32 throughput. The Quadro K4200's PCIe 2.0 interface further limits its data transfer capabilities relative to the GTX 1070 Ti's PCIe 3.0 connection. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are not a differentiator.

For buyers prioritizing compute performance, the GTX 1070 Ti is the only option supported by the recorded data. For buyers constrained by slot width, power draw, or power supply capacity, the Quadro K4200 offers a viable lower-power alternative, but they must accept a substantial compute performance penalty. The average score gap of 14277 versus 12398 and the percentile gap of 56 versus 52 reinforce the same conclusion: the GTX 1070 Ti is the stronger card in every measured compute benchmark, and the Quadro K4200's advantages are limited to physical form factor and power consumption.