NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 scores 13,189 on average, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12,398. The GTX 950 leads by roughly 6.4% based on these figures.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The GTX 950 scores 16,734 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 34.1% ahead of the Quadro K4200's 12,482. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any shared test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units and 112 TMUs, compared to the GTX 950's 768 shading units and 48 TMUs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. Both use a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 950 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.175 on the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and target different market segments. The GTX 950 is built on the GM206 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 900 generation. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, belonging to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation.

Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chip designs diverge significantly. The Quadro K4200 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 950 has 2,940 million transistors on a smaller 228 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.9 million per mm² for the GTX 950 versus 12.0 million per mm² for the Quadro K4200.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of divergent design priorities. The GTX 950 operates at a base clock of 1024 MHz and boost clock of 1188 MHz, while the Quadro K4200 runs much slower at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. The GTX 950 also runs its memory faster, at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) on the Quadro.

The Quadro K4200 compensates with a wider memory interface and more execution resources. It has 1,344 shading units and 112 TMUs, versus 768 shading units and 48 TMUs on the GTX 950. Both have 32 ROPs. The Quadro's wider 256-bit memory bus and 4 GB capacity give it 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 950's 128-bit bus delivers 105.8 GB/s.

Feature support also differs. The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 950 offers more display outputs with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The physical specifications also differ. The GTX 950 is a dual-slot card measuring 202 mm (8 inches) in length. The Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The GTX 950 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison includes two benchmark tests, and the GTX 950 wins both. The first test is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 950 scores 15,662 against the Quadro K4200's 12,313. This gives the GTX 950 a 27.2% advantage. The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 950 scores 16,734 versus 12,482 for the Quadro K4200, a 34.1% lead.

The Vulkan result is particularly notable because it represents the larger gap of the two. The GTX 950's newer Maxwell architecture and higher clocks appear to benefit more from the Vulkan API's lower overhead. The OpenCL test shows a smaller but still substantial margin.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 950's 13,189 average places it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4200's 12,398 average sits at the 52nd percentile. The GTX 950's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 (13,300, -0.8%), the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321, -1%), and the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, -1.2%). The Quadro K4200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, -1.8%), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, -2.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773, -2.9%).

The data shows that the GTX 950 sits within 1% of several competitors, while the Quadro K4200 trails its nearest rivals by 1.8% to 2.9%. This suggests the GTX 950 is more competitive within its performance tier than the Quadro K4200.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GM206 (GTX 950) versus GK104 (Quadro K4200)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 versus Kepler
• Generation: GeForce 900 versus Quadro Kepler (Kx200)
• Transistors: 2,940 million versus 3,540 million
• Die Size: 228 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.9M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1024 MHz versus 771 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1188 MHz versus 784 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 105.8 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 versus 1,344
• TMUs: 48 versus 112
• Pixel Rate: 38.02 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 57.02 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.825 TFLOPS versus 2.107 TFLOPS
• TDP: 90 W versus 108 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 300 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Dimensions: 202 mm length versus 241 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release Date: 2015-08-19 versus 2014-07-21
• Predecessor: GeForce 700 versus Quadro Fermi
• Successor: GeForce 10 versus Quadro Maxwell
• Launch MSRP: 159 USD (GTX 950 only; Quadro K4200 has no listed MSRP)

The Verdict

The benchmark data consistently favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 in computational performance. It wins both head-to-head tests, with margins of 27.2% in OpenCL and 34.1% in Vulkan. The average benchmark score also confirms this, with the GTX 950 at 13,189 versus 12,398 for the Quadro K4200.

The GTX 950's advantage comes from its much higher clock speeds and newer architecture. Despite having fewer shading units (768 versus 1,344) and TMUs (48 versus 112), the GTX 950 achieves higher pixel rate (38.02 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s) due to its faster clocks. The Quadro K4200 does maintain a lead in texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s versus 57.02 GTexel/s) and FP32 performance (2.107 TFLOPS versus 1.825 TFLOPS), but this does not translate into better benchmark results.

The Quadro K4200's strengths lie in its memory subsystem. It offers double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB) and significantly more bandwidth (172.8 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s) thanks to the wider 256-bit bus. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound or bandwidth sensitive, this could be relevant.

The GTX 950 also has a better feature set for modern APIs, supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 950 was released roughly a year later, which explains its more modern feature support.

The GTX 950 is the clear winner in terms of raw benchmark performance. The Quadro K4200's only advantages are memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and a single-slot form factor.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950:

• Wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 27.2% lead in OpenCL and a 34.1% lead in Vulkan
• Higher average benchmark score (13,189 versus 12,398)
• Higher pixel rate (38.02 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s)
• Faster memory clocks (6.6 Gbps effective versus 5.4 Gbps effective)
• Newer architecture (Maxwell 2.0 versus Kepler)
• Better API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4
• More display outputs (5 total versus 3)
• Lower TDP (90 W versus 108 W) and lower suggested PSU (250 W versus 300 W)
• PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus PCIe 2.0 x16
• Higher transistor density (12.9M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²)

NVIDIA Quadro K4200:

• Double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB)
• Higher memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s) due to the 256-bit bus
• More shading units (1,344 versus 768) and TMUs (112 versus 48)
• Higher texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s versus 57.02 GTexel/s)
• Higher FP32 performance (2.107 TFLOPS versus 1.825 TFLOPS)
• Single-slot form factor versus dual-slot
• More transistors (3,540 million versus 2,940 million) on a larger die (294 mm² versus 228 mm²)

The data suggests the GTX 950 is the superior choice for general compute and gaming workloads where raw benchmark performance matters. The Quadro K4200, with its larger memory pool and bandwidth, may be more suitable for specific professional applications that require large datasets or high memory throughput, despite its lower overall benchmark scores.