NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is a matchup between two very different NVIDIA designs from different eras: the former is a dual-GPU flagship from the GeForce 500 generation built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the latter is a professional workstation card from the Quadro Kepler Kx200 line. The benchmark data shows a narrow victory for the GTX 590 in the only shared test, but the architectural and feature differences tell a more nuanced story than the raw score alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single common benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 scores 12,830 points against the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,313 points. This gives the GTX 590 a 4.2% advantage in raw compute throughput. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming; it places the GTX 590 just 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773) in its nearest rivals list, while the Quadro K4200 sits 2.9% behind that same GTX 670. In practical terms, the GTX 590’s lead over the Quadro K4200 is roughly equivalent to the gap between the Quadro and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT, which trails the K4200 by 2.5% in the latter’s rival list.

The GTX 590 achieves this win despite having fewer shading units (512 vs 1,344) and a much lower texture rate (38.91 GTexel/s vs 87.81 GTexel/s). Its advantage comes from a higher memory clock (854 MHz vs 1,350 MHz base, though the effective rates are 3.4 Gbps vs 5.4 Gbps) and a wider 384-bit memory bus versus the K4200’s 256-bit bus. However, the bandwidth numbers tell a different story: the Quadro K4200 actually has higher memory bandwidth at 172.8 GB/s compared to 164.0 GB/s for the GTX 590. This suggests the GTX 590’s win is driven more by compute architecture efficiency in this specific OpenCL workload than by memory throughput.

The delta of 4.2% is small enough that it could be considered within run-to-run variance for many workloads, but the data consistently shows the GTX 590 edging out the Quadro K4200. Notably, the GTX 590’s percentile rank against all GPUs is 52, and the Quadro K4200 also sits at 52, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall. The average benchmark score for the GTX 590 is 12,830 (single test), while the Quadro K4200 averages 12,398 across two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). The Vulkan score of 12,482 for the K4200 is lower than its OpenCL score, which could indicate API-specific performance characteristics.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 is the clear winner in raw compute performance, taking the only head-to-head benchmark with a 4.2% margin. Users who prioritize maximum OpenCL throughput should choose the GTX 590, as it outpaces the Quadro K4200 in the sole direct comparison. The GTX 590 also has a higher pixel rate (19.46 GPixel/s vs 21.95 GPixel/s for the K4200) — wait, that actually shows the K4200 is faster in pixel fill rate, meaning the K4200 has an advantage in certain rasterization-heavy tasks.

The Quadro K4200, however, wins on efficiency and modern feature support. It draws 108 W TDP versus 365 W for the GTX 590, and it requires only a 300 W suggested PSU compared to 750 W for the GTX 590. The K4200 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 590 has no Vulkan support listed. For professional environments where power consumption and modern API compatibility matter, the K4200 is the more practical choice despite the slight performance deficit.

The verdict is split: the GTX 590 wins the performance crown in the shared benchmark, but the K4200 offers better efficiency and newer software support. The data does not show the GTX 590 as a dominant force; a 4.2% lead is modest. The K4200’s higher transistor density (12.0M / mm² vs 5.8M / mm²) on a smaller 28 nm node versus 40 nm indicates a more modern design that achieves competitive performance with far less power.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is substantial. The GTX 590 uses the GF110 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process. It packs 3,000 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.8M / mm². The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a much smaller 294 mm² die, achieving 12.0M / mm² density — more than double the GTX 590’s density.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The GTX 590 has 512 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. The K4200 has more than 2.6 times the shading units and 1.75 times the TMUs, but two-thirds the ROPs. This explains the K4200’s higher texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 38.91 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (2.107 TFLOPS vs 1,244.2 GFLOPS), yet lower pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s vs 19.46 GPixel/s — actually the K4200 is slightly higher here).

Memory configurations are also distinct. The GTX 590 has 1,536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The K4200’s larger capacity is typical of professional cards, while the GTX 590’s wider bus provides lower latency potential. The K4200 has higher memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s vs 164.0 GB/s), despite the narrower bus, due to a higher effective memory clock (5.4 Gbps vs 3.4 Gbps).

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K4200 has Vulkan support (version 1.2.175). The GTX 590 is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the K4200 is a single-slot card with a single 6-pin connector. The GTX 590 is longer at 279 mm (11 inches) versus 241 mm (9.5 inches) for the K4200, though both share the same height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The GTX 590 offers 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort outputs, while the K4200 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in the shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 scores 12,830 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.2% higher than the Quadro K4200’s 12,313 score.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 have any performance advantage over the GTX 590?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4200 has higher pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s vs 19.46 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 38.91 GTexel/s), and higher memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s vs 164.0 GB/s).

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these two cards?

A: The GTX 590 has a TDP of 365 W and requires a 750 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro K4200 supports Vulkan (version 1.2.175); the GTX 590 has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

Q: How do their memory capacities and bus widths compare?

A: The GTX 590 has 1,536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The GTX 590 is 279 mm (11 inches) long and dual-slot, while the Quadro K4200 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and single-slot; both are 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 wins in the direct compute benchmark, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 4.2%. It also has a wider memory bus (384-bit vs 256-bit), which can benefit workloads that are sensitive to memory access patterns. Its higher pixel rate (19.46 GPixel/s) is actually lower than the K4200’s, so the GTX 590 does not win on pixel fill rate. The GTX 590’s strength lies in its higher memory clock speed (854 MHz vs 1,350 MHz base for the K4200) and dual-GPU design (implied by its 365 W TDP), which contributes to its compute advantage in the OpenCL test.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 wins on every efficiency and capacity metric. Its 4 GB memory capacity is more than 2.5 times the GTX 590’s 1,536 MB, making it better suited for large datasets. Its 108 W TDP is less than one-third of the GTX 590’s 365 W, and its single-slot design with a 6-pin connector is far less demanding on system power delivery. The K4200’s higher texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (2.107 TFLOPS) indicate better raw shading capability, even if the OpenCL benchmark doesn’t reflect it. It also supports Vulkan, which the GTX 590 does not.

For use-case-specific wins: the GTX 590 is better for OpenCL compute tasks where the benchmark score matters most, and its wider memory bus could benefit certain memory-latency-sensitive algorithms. The Quadro K4200 is better for power-constrained environments, multi-display professional setups (2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs), and workloads that require more than 2 GB of video memory. The K4200’s higher pixel rate makes it more suitable for high-resolution rendering, while the GTX 590’s compute lead is narrow enough that the K4200’s other advantages may outweigh it in real-world professional use.