NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER represent two distinct eras of GPU design, one aimed at professional workstations and the other at mainstream gaming. The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between them, but the nature of that gap reveals important differences in their target applications. The benchmark results indicate that the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is significantly faster in the tested compute and graphics workloads, while the Quadro K4200 offers a legacy of professional features that are not quantified in this database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two direct benchmark comparisons between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The results are not close. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the Quadro K4200's 12,313. This translates to a delta of -71.9%, meaning the GTX 1650 SUPER is roughly 3.5 times faster in this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger margin, with the GTX 1650 SUPER scoring 50,519 versus the Quadro's 12,482, a delta of -75.3%. This indicates the GTX 1650 SUPER is approximately 4 times faster in Vulkan compute.

These are not marginal wins; they are generational leaps. The Quadro K4200's average benchmark score of 12,398 places it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 SUPER's average score of 11,047 places it in the 50th percentile. Despite the GTX 1650 SUPER having a lower average benchmark score due to the inclusion of many other tests, its performance in the direct head-to-head OpenCL and Vulkan tests is vastly superior. The data shows the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both head-to-head comparisons, with a total of 2 wins and 0 for the Quadro K4200.

The Quadro K4200's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm, which scores an average of 12,625 and is -1.8% relative to the Quadro, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT, which scores 12,710 and is -2.5% relative. This shows the Quadro K4200 is squarely in a performance tier with those older high-end parts. The GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals are lower-end cards like the AMD Radeon RX 550, which scores 11,075 and is -0.2% relative, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, which scores 10,883 and is 1.5% relative. This is a curious placement, as the GTX 1650 SUPER's raw scores in the head-to-head tests are much higher than its average score, suggesting its average is dragged down by less demanding tests. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 352 for the GTX 1650 SUPER further confirms its modern DirectX 12 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput is 4.416 TFLOPS, more than double the Quadro K4200's 2.107 TFLOPS. This advantage is directly reflected in its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores, which are 256% and 305% higher, respectively. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a significantly higher pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s compared to the Quadro's 21.95 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate of 138.0 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s. This makes it the superior choice for any workload that relies on raw shading, texturing, or compute, including gaming and general-purpose GPU compute.

The Quadro K4200's wins are less about raw speed and more about its intended role. It has a 256-bit memory bus, which is double the width of the GTX 1650 SUPER's 128-bit bus. While this results in a lower overall bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s compared to the GTX 1650 SUPER's 192.0 GB/s, the wider bus can be beneficial in certain professional applications that require large data sets to be accessed with lower latency. The Quadro K4200 also has more texture mapping units (112 versus 80) and more shading units (1344 versus 1280), although the GTX 1650 SUPER's much higher clock speeds negate this advantage in practice. The Quadro's architecture is also from the professional Quadro line, which historically offers certified drivers and features for CAD and DCC applications, though these are not quantified by the benchmark data.

In the specific tests available, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins every category that is comparable. Its Passmark scores show strong performance in DirectX 11 (73) and DirectX 9 (148), with lower scores in DirectX 12 (45) and DirectX 10 (50). The Quadro K4200 has no Passmark scores recorded. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a Passmark G2D score of 749, indicating it is a capable 2D performer as well.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², for a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip, based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm², resulting in a much higher transistor density of 23.2M per mm². This newer process allows the GTX 1650 SUPER to pack almost twice the transistors into a slightly smaller die.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The Quadro K4200 has a base clock of 771 MHz and a boost clock of 784 MHz. The GTX 1650 SUPER runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz, more than double the Quadro's speeds. This explains the massive performance difference despite the GTX 1650 SUPER having fewer shading units and TMUs. The memory systems also differ. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, running at an effective speed of 5.4 Gbps, yielding 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, running at an effective speed of 12 Gbps, yielding 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The newer GDDR6 memory is much faster per pin, allowing the GTX 1650 SUPER to achieve higher bandwidth with a narrower bus.

The feature sets also reflect their different generations. The Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a higher FP16 throughput of 8.832 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no listed FP16 performance. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. Both have the same TDP of 100 W for the GTX 1650 SUPER and 108 W for the Quadro, and both require a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W power supply. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card, while the Quadro is a single-slot card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a higher average benchmark score of 12,398, compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER's 11,047. However, this is misleading, as the GTX 1650 SUPER has many more benchmark entries, including less demanding tests.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 75.3% higher than the Quadro K4200's score of 12,482.

Q: What are the memory bus widths of these two cards?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a 256-bit memory bus, while the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same power requirements?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, and the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W. Both require a 300 W power supply and a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has 6,600 million transistors, while the Quadro K4200 has 3,540 million transistors.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4200 is built on a 28 nm process, while the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is built on a 12 nm process.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the vastly superior performer in the benchmark tests recorded. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 3.5 to 4 times higher than the Quadro K4200's. Its FP32 throughput, pixel rate, and texture rate are all more than double that of the Quadro. For any application that depends on raw compute or rendering speed, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the obvious choice. Its modern Turing architecture, with support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, also ensures better compatibility with contemporary software.

The Quadro K4200's only advantages are its wider 256-bit memory bus and its professional Quadro heritage. For users with legacy professional software that relies on specific driver optimizations or requires a single-slot card, the Quadro K4200 might still have a niche. However, the benchmark data shows it is significantly slower in raw compute. Its percentile rank of 52nd versus the GTX 1650 SUPER's 50th is a statistical artifact of the different benchmark suites, not a reflection of real-world performance parity.

The recommendation is clear. For any user prioritizing performance in compute, gaming, or modern graphics workloads, the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior product. The Quadro K4200 is a product of an older era, and its only appeal lies in its professional branding and specific legacy features, not its measurable performance. The recorded data shows that the GTX 1650 SUPER is the better choice for virtually any task that can be benchmarked.