NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 represent two distinct generations of GPU design, targeting different workloads. The data shows a decisive performance gulf between them, but the choice between the two hinges on specific application requirements. The K4200 is a professional Kepler-era card, while the GTX 1080 is a Pascal-era consumer flagship. Benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1080 dominates in raw compute, but the K4200 retains relevance in its specific niche.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a stark picture of the performance divide. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available, the GeForce GTX 1080 records a clean sweep, securing wins in both tests. The K4200 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison. The GTX 1080’s victory in Geekbench OpenCL is particularly lopsided, with a score of 51204 against the K4200’s 12313, a delta of -76% from the perspective of the older card. This indicates a massive advantage for the GTX 1080 in general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

However, the K4200’s value proposition is not solely defined by these raw numbers. Its professional positioning suggests a different use case. The data lists its architecture as Kepler, a generation designed for stability and certified performance in professional applications. While the GTX 1080 wins on pure throughput, the K4200’s role as a workstation card implies a focus on driver optimization for specific CAD, DCC, and scientific software. In such environments, the K4200’s feature set and certified driver support may be more critical than raw OpenCL scores. The GTX 1080, with its higher average benchmark score of 11960, holds a slight edge over the K4200’s 12398 in the aggregate, though the K4200's average is higher. It is important to note that the GTX 1080’s percentile rank is 51st, while the K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile, indicating they are in a similar tier relative to the broader GPU market, despite the GTX 1080’s dominance in specific tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is fundamental. The Quadro K4200 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the GTX 1080 utilizes the Pascal architecture with the GP104 chip, manufactured on a much more advanced 16 nm process, also at TSMC. This process node difference is a primary driver of the performance gap, allowing the GTX 1080 to pack 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, versus the K4200’s 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the GTX 1080 achieves 22.9M transistors per mm², nearly double the K4200’s 12.0M.

Core configuration differences are equally stark. The GTX 1080 features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster output units (ROPs). The K4200 is equipped with 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a significant compute advantage for the GTX 1080, which delivers 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s. The K4200, by contrast, offers 2.107 TFLOPS and a pixel rate of 21.95 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors the newer card, with 277.3 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s. Memory subsystems also differ; the GTX 1080 uses 8 GB of GDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, yielding 320.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the K4200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a similar 256-bit bus, providing 172.8 GB/s.

Clock speeds and power characteristics follow the architectural trend. The GTX 1080 has a base clock of 1607 MHz and a boost clock of 1733 MHz, while the K4200 operates at a base of 771 MHz and a boost of 784 MHz. The GTX 1080’s higher clocks and core count necessitate a 180 W TDP and a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested 450 W PSU. The K4200 is more modest, with a 108 W TDP, a single 6-pin connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The GTX 1080 is also a dual-slot card, whereas the K4200 is single-slot. Feature support also diverges: the GTX 1080 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4200 caps out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1080’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also doubles the bandwidth of the K4200’s PCIe 2.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous when assessing raw performance: the GeForce GTX 1080 is the superior card. It wins all head-to-head benchmarks, has more than four times the FP32 throughput, and offers 86% more memory bandwidth. For any task that is purely compute-bound, the GTX 1080 is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score is 11960, and it sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, placing it in a similar overall performance tier as the K4200, which is at the 52nd percentile. This suggests that while the GTX 1080 wins the specific tests, the overall performance landscape is more nuanced.

The case for the Quadro K4200 rests entirely on its professional positioning. As a Kepler-generation Quadro card, it is designed for a different ecosystem. The GTX 1080 is listed with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The K4200 has no such listing. The K4200’s single-slot design and lower 108 W TDP make it suitable for dense workstation builds where space and power are at a premium. Its display outputs, featuring 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, are standard for professional monitors. The GTX 1080, with its dual-slot design and 180 W TDP, is a consumer card optimized for gaming and general-purpose compute. The verdict is that users requiring maximum compute performance should choose the GTX 1080. Those needing a low-profile, power-efficient professional card for validated software workflows should consider the K4200, despite its lower benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 is significantly faster, scoring 51204 compared to the Quadro K4200’s 12313, a difference of -76% for the K4200.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GTX 1080 has 8 GB of GDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 320.3 GB/s. The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The GTX 1080 has a TDP of 180 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector and a 450 W PSU. The K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, uses a single 6-pin connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 1080 has 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, while the K4200 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: What is the architectural generation of each GPU?

A: The GTX 1080 is based on the Pascal architecture (GP104 chip), while the Quadro K4200 is based on the older Kepler architecture (GK104 chip).

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 win any head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. In the available head-to-head data, the GeForce GTX 1080 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests, leaving the K4200 with zero wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results provide a clear quantitative summary of the performance gap. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1080 scores 51204 against the K4200’s 12313. This represents a 76% deficit for the K4200, showcasing the massive compute advantage of the Pascal architecture. The GTX 1080’s higher shading unit count, clock speeds, and memory bandwidth all contribute to this result. The K4200’s 2.107 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply outclassed by the GTX 1080’s 8.873 TFLOPS.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar, though less extreme, outcome. The GTX 1080 wins with a score of 30398, while the K4200 manages 12482. This is a delta of -58.9% for the K4200. While the margin is smaller than in OpenCL, it still represents a decisive victory for the GTX 1080. This test may be more dependent on driver overhead and specific API optimizations, but the underlying hardware advantage of the GTX 1080 remains the dominant factor. The K4200’s support for Vulkan 1.2.175, compared to the GTX 1080’s Vulkan 1.4, also indicates a more mature implementation on the newer card. Across both benchmarks, the GTX 1080’s architecture, with nearly double the shading units and over four times the FP32 throughput, proves to be in a different performance class. The K4200’s only saving grace is its professional feature set, which is not reflected in these raw compute benchmarks.