NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture of performance disparity between these two Kepler-based NVIDIA cards. In the two shared tests, the GeForce GTX 680 decisively outperforms the Quadro K4200. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 680 scores 16,906 points against the Quadro K4200's 12,313, a lead of 37.3%. The Vulkan test shows an even wider gap: the GTX 680 posts 17,646 points versus 12,482 for the Quadro, a 41.4% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent a substantial performance class separation.

The GTX 680's average benchmark score of 14,150 reinforces this dominance. The Quadro K4200's average sits at 12,398, which is 1,752 points lower. This gap is consistent with the head-to-head results. The GTX 680 wins both of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with the database recording two wins for the GeForce card and zero for the Quadro.

Looking at the percentile rankings, both cards sit in the middle of the GPU performance distribution. The GTX 680 achieves the 55th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4200 is at the 52nd percentile. This three-percentage-point difference in percentile ranking, along with the average score gap, indicates that the GTX 680 is the stronger performer in raw compute tasks. The data suggests that the GTX 680's higher clock speeds and greater shading unit count contribute to this advantage, though the database does not directly attribute causality.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680 emerges as the clear winner in compute-oriented benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 16,906 versus 12,313 for the Quadro K4200 translates to a 37.3% advantage, making it the preferred choice for general-purpose GPU compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. Similarly, the Vulkan score of 17,646 versus 12,482 gives the GTX 680 a 41.4% lead, suggesting it is also more capable in modern graphics APIs. These are the only two benchmark categories where both cards have recorded scores, so the GTX 680 wins every available comparison.

The Quadro K4200 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, the data does show areas where the Quadro card has structural advantages that might matter in specific professional contexts. It has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB for the GTX 680. This larger memory allocation could be beneficial for workloads that require large datasets to reside in video memory, such as certain rendering or simulation tasks. The Quadro also has a lower power draw at 108 W TDP compared to 195 W for the GTX 680, which could make it easier to deploy in systems with limited power budgets. The single-slot design and PCIe 2.0 interface also differentiate it physically.

Neither card has recorded scores for ray tracing or tensor core benchmarks, as both lack those hardware units. The data shows no scenario where the Quadro K4200 wins a performance test, but its memory capacity and power efficiency are notable specifications that could tilt a purchasing decision in specific professional workflows.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTX 680 has an average benchmark score of 14,150, which is higher than the Quadro K4200's average of 12,398.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 680 in the Vulkan test?

A: The GTX 680 scores 17,646 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro K4200 scores 12,482. The GTX 680 is 41.4% ahead.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 have more memory than the GTX 680?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the 2 GB found on the GTX 680.

Q: What is the transistor count for both cards?

A: Both cards use the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors, and both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which card has a lower TDP?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, which is significantly lower than the GTX 680's 195 W TDP.

Q: How does the GTX 680 compare to the Tesla K10?

A: The GTX 680's average score of 14,150 is only 0.9% higher than the Tesla K10's average score of 14,029.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in their specifications despite sharing the same underlying chip. The GTX 680 has a base clock of 1006 MHz and a boost clock of 1058 MHz, while the Quadro K4200 operates at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. This clock advantage explains part of the GTX 680's performance lead. The memory clock also differs: the GTX 680 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro K4200 runs at 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective speed. This contributes to a bandwidth difference, with the GTX 680 achieving 192.3 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s for the Quadro.

The memory capacity is a major differentiator: the GTX 680 has 2 GB, while the Quadro K4200 has 4 GB. Both use GDDR5 memory and a 256-bit bus width. The shading units count differs as well, with the GTX 680 featuring 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, versus 1,344 shading units and 112 texture mapping units for the Quadro. Both cards have 32 ROPs.

Other specification differences include the TDP, which is 195 W for the GTX 680 and 108 W for the Quadro K4200. The GTX 680 requires two 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro K4200 needs only one 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The slot width differs too: the GTX 680 is dual-slot, while the Quadro is single-slot. The bus interface also differs, with the GTX 680 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Quadro using PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs vary, with the GTX 680 offering 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro K4200 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The physical dimensions differ, with the GTX 680 measuring 256 mm in length and 38 mm in width, while the Quadro K4200 is 241 mm long with no recorded width. The GTX 680 was released on 2012-03-21, and the Quadro K4200 on 2014-07-21. The GTX 680 had a launch MSRP of 499 USD, while the Quadro's MSRP is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture and use the GK104 chip. They share the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, the same 3,540 million transistor count, and the same 294 mm² die size. The transistor density is identical at 12.0M / mm². Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither has recorded FP16 performance.

The architectural differences appear in the execution resources. The GTX 680 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This represents a 12.5% reduction in shading units and a 12.5% reduction in TMUs for the Quadro. The pixel rate and texture rate reflect these differences: the GTX 680 achieves 33.86 GPixel/s and 135.4 GTexel/s, while the Quadro K4200 achieves 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 3.250 TFLOPS for the GTX 680 and 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro K4200.

The generations differ, with the GTX 680 belonging to the GeForce 600 series and the Quadro K4200 to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. Their predecessors and successors also differ: the GTX 680's predecessor is GeForce 500 and its successor is GeForce 700, while the Quadro K4200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The production status for both is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the GeForce GTX 680 in terms of raw performance. It wins every recorded benchmark against the Quadro K4200, with leads of 37.3% in OpenCL and 41.4% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 14,150 is 14.1% higher than the Quadro's 12,398. The GTX 680 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 55 versus 52. For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the GTX 680 is the superior choice based on the recorded data.

The Quadro K4200 does have advantages that the data reveals. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the GTX 680, which could be critical for memory-bound professional applications. Its TDP of 108 W is significantly lower than 195 W, and its single-slot design with a single 6-pin power connector makes it easier to integrate into compact systems. The PCIe 2.0 interface is a drawback, but the lower power requirements might make it suitable for workstations with limited power delivery.

The release dates show the GTX 680 launched in March 2012, while the Quadro K4200 arrived in July 2014. Despite being newer, the Quadro does not outperform the older GTX 680 in the tested benchmarks. The GTX 680's higher clock speeds and additional shading units provide it with a clear performance edge. For users who need maximum compute throughput, the GTX 680 is the data-backed choice. For users who need larger memory capacity and lower power consumption, the Quadro K4200 offers those specific benefits, though at a significant performance cost. The data does not show any benchmark where the Quadro K4200 wins, so its value lies entirely in its memory capacity and power efficiency, not in performance metrics.