NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A are both end-of-life graphics cards from NVIDIA, but they serve very different purposes. The Quadro K4200 is a professional workstation card built on the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 950A is a mobile-oriented GeForce part based on Maxwell. Benchmark data shows a clear performance gap favoring the Quadro K4200, but the two cards also differ substantially in memory configuration, power requirements, and intended use cases. The recorded average benchmark score for the Quadro K4200 is 12,398, placing it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 950A averages 10,273, landing in the 48th percentile. These numbers alone indicate a meaningful separation in raw compute capability, but the details of architecture and specifications reveal why each card exists.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has an average benchmark score of 12,398, compared to 10,273 for the GeForce GTX 950A. That is a difference of approximately 19.9% in favor of the Quadro K4200.

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

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4200 scores 12,313, while the GTX 950A scores 10,273. The Quadro K4200 wins this test by 19.9%.

Q: What are the memory sizes and types for each card?

A: The Quadro K4200 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, while the GTX 950A has 640 shading units. The Quadro K4200 also has 112 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, versus 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the GTX 950A.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a thermal design power of 108 W and requires a 300 W power supply with a single 6-pin connector. The GTX 950A has a TDP of 75 W and uses no power connectors, as it is an MXM module.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K4200 is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 1,870 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die, giving a slightly higher transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. This means the GTX 950A packs more transistors per area despite having fewer total transistors.

The generation names reflect their lineages: the Quadro K4200 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) family, while the GTX 950A is part of the GeForce 900A series. The Quadro K4200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 950A's predecessor is GeForce 800A, and it has no recorded successor. Clock speeds differ significantly: the Quadro K4200 runs at a base clock of 771 MHz with a boost of 784 MHz, while the GTX 950A has a much higher base clock of 993 MHz and a boost of 1,124 MHz. Memory clocks also diverge, with the Quadro K4200 using 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) and the GTX 950A using 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The higher clock speeds on the GTX 950A partially compensate for its smaller memory bus and fewer cores, but not enough to overcome the Quadro K4200's raw compute resources.

The compute capabilities are starkly different. The Quadro K4200 delivers 2.107 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, a pixel rate of 21.95 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 87.81 GTexel/s. The GTX 950A offers 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32, a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s. These figures show the Quadro K4200 is roughly 46% ahead in FP32 throughput, about 22% ahead in pixel fill rate, and nearly twice as fast in texture rate. The architectural choices reflect different priorities: Kepler was designed for high-end workstation compute, while Maxwell in this implementation targets lower power and mobile integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards, the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the Quadro K4200 scores 12,313, and the GTX 950A scores 10,273. The winner is the Quadro K4200 with a margin of 19.9%. This is a substantial victory, but it is important to note that OpenCL performance does not directly translate to gaming or workstation application performance in every scenario. Still, the margin underscores the Quadro K4200's advantage in general compute workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the Quadro K4200 sits close to the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm, which averages 12,625, a difference of -1.8% from the Quadro's average. The Quadro K4200 is also 2.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710) and 2.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773). On the other side, the Quadro K4200 is 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A, which averages 11,998. This places the Quadro K4200 in a competitive mid-range tier for its era, slightly below some desktop gaming cards but above several mobile and older workstation parts.

For the GTX 950A, its nearest rivals show a tighter cluster. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M averages 10,362, just 0.9% higher than the GTX 950A. The NVIDIA Tesla C2075 averages 10,400, a 1.2% advantage. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 scores 10,070, which is 2% lower than the GTX 950A, and the AMD Radeon RX 550X averages 10,481, putting it 2% higher. This indicates the GTX 950A sits in a lower performance bracket, roughly on par with entry-level mobile discrete GPUs from the same period. The 19.9% gap between the two reviewed cards is therefore consistent with the broader performance tiers: the Quadro K4200 competes near desktop GTX 670 levels, while the GTX 950A aligns with low-end mobile Radeon parts.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Memory capacity is 4 GB for the Quadro K4200 versus 2 GB for the GTX 950A. Memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3, and the bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. This leads to a massive bandwidth difference: 172.8 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s, a factor of more than five. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the GTX 950A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K4200's FP32 output is 2.107 TFLOPS against 1,438.7 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 21.95 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 87.81 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s.

Physical and power specifications also diverge. The Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card that is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, requiring a 108 W TDP, a 300 W suggested power supply, and a single 6-pin power connector. It uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface. The GTX 950A is an MXM module, meaning it has no fixed dimensions, no power connectors, a 75 W TDP, and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Display outputs are also different: the Quadro K4200 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 950A's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its use in laptops and all-in-one systems. The Quadro K4200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Release dates are separated by several months: the Quadro K4200 launched on July 21, 2014, and the GTX 950A launched on March 12, 2015. Both are marked as end-of-life products. The Quadro K4200 has no launch MSRP in the database, and neither does the GTX 950A.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the more powerful GPU. It outperforms the GTX 950A by 19.9% in the OpenCL benchmark and has a higher average benchmark score overall, 12,398 versus 10,273. The Quadro K4200 also holds a higher percentile rank at 52 versus 48. In every raw compute metric, from FP32 throughput to texture rate, the Quadro K4200 leads. If the sole criterion is benchmark performance, the Quadro K4200 is the choice.

However, the GTX 950A is not without its advantages. It has a significantly lower TDP of 75 W, does not require any power connectors, and uses a compact MXM form factor. It also supports a newer Vulkan version, 1.4, and has a higher base and boost clock. For systems where power draw and physical space are constrained, the GTX 950A is the more practical option. The Quadro K4200's 108 W TDP and 300 W suggested power supply make it unsuitable for low-power or mobile designs.

The intended use case matters. The Quadro K4200 is a professional workstation card with display outputs for DVI and DisplayPort, suggesting it was designed for desktop workstations. The GTX 950A is a mobile module, with display outputs dependent on the host device, indicating it was meant for laptops or small-form-factor systems. Neither card is a modern gaming solution, but the Quadro K4200 offers substantially more compute headroom for professional applications. The GTX 950A trades performance for efficiency and integration.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4200 wins decisively in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provides far more memory throughput, which matters for large datasets, rendering, and scientific simulations. Its 1,344 shading units and 2.107 TFLOPS of FP32 performance give it a clear edge in parallel processing tasks. The 87.81 GTexel/s texture rate and 21.95 GPixel/s pixel rate also make it superior for texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution output. The data shows it is 19.9% faster in OpenCL, and its average score places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 and Tesla K20Xm, both of which are desktop or server-class parts. For anyone running professional software that leverages OpenCL, the Quadro K4200 is the stronger card.

The GTX 950A wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 75 W TDP is 33 W lower than the Quadro K4200, and it requires no external power connectors. It is an MXM module, which means it can be installed in portable devices where the Quadro K4200's single-slot 241 mm length would never fit. The GTX 950A also has a higher base clock of 993 MHz and boost clock of 1,124 MHz, which can help in lightly threaded tasks that rely on clock speed rather than core count. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is a newer API version, which could be relevant for future software compatibility, though its lower overall performance limits its appeal for demanding applications. The GTX 950A also has a slightly higher transistor density, 12.6M per mm² versus 12.0M, indicating a more efficient chip design per area.

In summary, the Quadro K4200 is the winner for raw performance and workstation-class compute. The GTX 950A is the winner for low-power, space-constrained mobile systems. The 19.9% benchmark gap is decisive, but the GTX 950A's 75 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only viable option in certain hardware environments. The recorded data does not support any claim of the GTX 950A outperforming the Quadro K4200 in any tested metric, so users seeking maximum performance should look to the Quadro K4200, while those prioritizing efficiency and portability should consider the GTX 950A.