NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti represent two very different philosophies from the same company, separated by roughly two years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the reasons behind that hierarchy and its practical implications for different workloads are where the real analysis lies. The K4000 is a professional workstation card built on the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 550 Ti is a consumer gaming card from the Fermi 2.0 era. The benchmark results show the K4000 leading in the single available head-to-head test, but the specifications tell a much deeper story about their respective strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a single point of direct comparison, but the surrounding context allows for a broader interpretation of each card's intended role. In the available head-to-head test, the Quadro K4000 wins decisively. It scores 6,816 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 18.9% higher than the GTX 550 Ti's score of 5,731. This indicates a clear advantage in general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, a common scenario for professional applications like CAD, scientific simulation, and video rendering.

The GTX 550 Ti, with its single benchmark score of 5,731, does not win any direct comparisons in this data. However, its strengths lie in its consumer-oriented feature set. The data shows it has a dual-slot design and a lower launch MSRP, positioning it as a more accessible entry-level option for its time. Its 1024 MB of memory is a significant limitation compared to the K4000's 3 GB, but for its intended use case of 1080p gaming in 2011, that was a standard configuration. The Quadro K4000, by contrast, is a single-slot card, which is a hallmark of professional cards designed for multi-GPU workstations where space is at a premium.

The performance percentiles reinforce this split. The K4000 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 550 Ti is just slightly below at the 33rd percentile. This narrow gap in percentile ranking suggests that while the K4000 is faster in compute, neither card is a top-tier performer by modern standards. For the Quadro, the win is about professional reliability and compute throughput. For the GTX 550 Ti, the absence of a win in the head-to-head data does not negate its historical role as a consumer-friendly card, but it does indicate it is outclassed by the K4000 in pure performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, explaining the performance gap. The K4000 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 550 Ti uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF116 chip, on a larger 40 nm process. This process difference is critical. The 28 nm node allows for a much higher transistor density, with the K4000 packing 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter compared to the GTX 550 Ti's 4.9 million. The K4000 houses 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the GTX 550 Ti has 1,170 million on a larger 238 mm² die. This means the K4000 fits more than twice the transistors into a smaller physical space, enabling its superior compute capabilities.

The core configurations diverge significantly. The K4000 features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 550 Ti is far leaner, with only 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The K4000 has four times the shading units, which directly translates to its 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the GTX 550 Ti's 691.2 GFLOPS. This is a raw compute advantage that cannot be overcome by clock speeds alone. The memory subsystems also differ, with the K4000 offering 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 550 Ti offers only 1024 MB of GDDR5 on the same 192-bit bus, resulting in 98.50 GB/s of bandwidth.

Feature support is another differentiator. The K4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 550 Ti has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K4000 also has a higher effective memory clock of 5.6 Gbps versus the GTX 550 Ti's 4.1 Gbps. These architectural differences are not minor tweaks; they represent a generational leap in design philosophy. Kepler was designed for efficiency and compute, while Fermi 2.0 was an iteration on a power-hungry architecture. This is reflected in the TDP, with the K4000 drawing 80 W versus the GTX 550 Ti's 116 W, despite offering significantly higher performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it paints a clear picture of the performance delta. The Quadro K4000 scores 6,816, while the GTX 550 Ti scores 5,731. This represents an 18.9% advantage for the K4000. This is a substantial margin in a compute-focused test, indicating that the K4000 is not just marginally better, but meaningfully faster in tasks that leverage the GPU's parallel processing capabilities.

Breaking down the numbers, the K4000's advantage can be traced to its raw specifications. Its FP32 performance of 1,244.2 GFLOPS is 80% higher than the GTX 550 Ti's 691.2 GFLOPS. The texture rate tells a similar story: 51.84 GTexel/s for the K4000 versus 28.80 GTexel/s for the GTX 550 Ti. Even the pixel rate, which is less divergent, shows the K4000 ahead at 12.96 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s. The memory bandwidth advantage of 134.8 GB/s versus 98.50 GB/s further cements the K4000's lead, as it can feed its more powerful compute units more quickly.

The delta of 18.9% is significant because it suggests that in professional workloads, the K4000 would complete tasks nearly a fifth faster than the GTX 550 Ti. While neither card is a modern powerhouse, this performance gap is substantial for the applications they were designed for. The GTX 550 Ti's lone score of 5,731 places it in a competitive peer group, with its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M465, scoring 5,841, which is 1.9% higher. This shows that the GTX 550 Ti is slightly below average in its immediate performance class, while the K4000's peers are incredibly tightly clustered around its score, with deltas of less than 0.2% against the Quadro K4000M, FirePro W4100, and even the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a higher average benchmark score of 5,982, while the GTX 550 Ti has an average score of 5,731.

Q: What is the performance difference in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4000 scores 6,816, which is 18.9% higher than the GTX 550 Ti's score of 5,731.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is three times the 1024 MB (1 GB) found on the GTX 550 Ti.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K4000 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 550 Ti does not list Vulkan support.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a significantly higher transistor density of 11.5M per mm², compared to the GTX 550 Ti's 4.9M per mm².

Q: What are their respective power requirements?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a TDP of 80 W and suggests a 250 W power supply, while the GTX 550 Ti has a TDP of 116 W and suggests a 300 W power supply.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior GPU in terms of raw performance and capability. Its 18.9% lead in the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, combined with its higher average score (5,982 vs 5,731) and superior specifications across the board, makes it the definitive choice for compute-intensive tasks. The K4000's 768 shading units, 3 GB of memory, and higher memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s vs 98.50 GB/s) provide a substantial foundation for professional workloads. Its lower TDP of 80 W, despite being more powerful, reflects the efficiency of the Kepler architecture on the 28 nm process.

The GTX 550 Ti, while historically a capable entry-level consumer card, is outclassed by the K4000 in every measurable way in this data. Its only wins are in its lower launch MSRP and its dual-slot design, which are not performance metrics. For a user strictly looking at benchmark results, the choice is unequivocal: the Quadro K4000 is the faster card. The K4000's percentile ranking of 34 versus the GTX 550 Ti's 33 is a narrow gap, but the delta in the head-to-head test shows a more pronounced difference in actual compute performance.

Who should pick which? Based solely on the data, a professional needing a single-slot, energy-efficient card with strong OpenCL performance and large memory capacity should choose the Quadro K4000. A user with a legacy system looking for a basic display adapter with a lower initial cost might consider the GTX 550 Ti, but they would be sacrificing significant compute performance. The verdict is not close. The K4000 is the better performer, and the data supports this conclusion without ambiguity.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Chip | GK106 | GF116 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | GeForce 500 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) | 1026 MHz (4.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 98.50 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 192 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 7.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 28.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | 116 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 210 mm (8.3 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2011-03-14 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 400 |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 600 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,269 USD | 149 USD |