NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A are both end-of-life GPUs from NVIDIA, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The Quadro K4200 is a workstation card built on the Kepler architecture, while the GTX 960A is a mobile-oriented Maxwell chip. Benchmark data reveals a close contest, but the underlying specifications tell a story of divergent design goals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is a single Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are remarkably tight. The Quadro K4200 scores 12313, while the GTX 960A scores 11998. This gives the Quadro a 2.6% lead in this specific workload. While that is a win for the K4200, the margin is slim enough that it could be considered within run-to-run variance on different driver versions or thermal conditions.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 960A’s average benchmark score of 11998 places it just 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (which scores 11960) and 1.3% above the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11842). This is a striking result—a mobile Maxwell chip effectively matching a high-end desktop Pascal card in this OpenCL test. The Quadro K4200’s average score of 12398, meanwhile, puts it 3.3% ahead of the GTX 960A and 2.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12773). The K4200 also sits 1.8% below the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12625) and 2.5% below the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12710).

The data suggests that in raw compute throughput for OpenCL, these two cards are nearly interchangeable. The Quadro wins the head-to-head, but its advantage is only 2.6%. However, the test suite is minimal, with no gaming, rendering, or professional application benchmarks to differentiate them. The single data point implies that for general-purpose compute, the architecture difference does not translate into a decisive performance gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Quadro K4200 is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The GTX 960A, in contrast, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die—a density of 12.6M / mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro K4200 has 1344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. The GTX 960A has just 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having roughly half the shader count, the GTX 960A achieves 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K4200 reaches 2.107 TFLOPS. The Quadro’s higher raw throughput is offset by its lower clock speeds—771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost versus 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost on the GTX 960A.

Memory configurations also diverge. The K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory advantage is over 2x in both capacity and bandwidth, which likely explains its edge in the OpenCL test despite the GTX 960A’s more modern architecture. The K4200 also has higher pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s).

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In the single available benchmark, the Quadro K4200 wins by 2.6%, and its average benchmark score is 3.3% higher than the GTX 960A. The K4200 also holds a percentile rank of 52 versus 51 for the GTX 960A, indicating slightly better standing across all GPUs. However, the differences are small enough that real-world performance could vary significantly by workload.

The Quadro K4200 is the clear choice for tasks that demand memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 4 GB frame buffer and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are double the GTX 960A’s 2 GB and 80.19 GB/s. The K4200 also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, which is critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or compute workloads that spill into VRAM. Its higher TMU and ROP counts (112 and 32 versus 40 and 16) suggest better performance in texture-heavy and fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The GTX 960A, despite its smaller footprint, offers a higher boost clock (1176 MHz vs 784 MHz) and a more power-efficient design at 75 W TDP versus 108 W. It also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175). For workloads that are latency-sensitive or clock-bound, the GTX 960A could potentially outperform its older sibling, but the limited benchmark data does not confirm this.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has 1344 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has 640.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K4200 offers 172.8 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 960A offers 80.19 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their FP32 performances compare?

A: The Quadro K4200 achieves 2.107 TFLOPS, whereas the GTX 960A achieves 1.505 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The GeForce GTX 960A has a boost clock of 1176 MHz, which is significantly higher than the Quadro K4200’s 784 MHz boost.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: No. The Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, while the GTX 960A is an MXM Module with no listed dimensions.

Q: What is the transistor count for each?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 3,540 million transistors, and the GTX 960A has 1,870 million.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4200 wins in raw compute throughput (2.107 TFLOPS vs 1.505 TFLOPS), memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s), and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s). It also wins the single head-to-head benchmark by 2.6%. This makes it the better option for tasks like rendering large scenes, processing high-resolution textures, or any workload that requires more than 2 GB of VRAM. The K4200’s higher TMU and ROP counts (112 and 32) further support its dominance in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

The GTX 960A wins on clock speed (1097 MHz base, 1176 MHz boost), power consumption (75 W vs 108 W), and Vulkan API support (1.4 vs 1.2.175). Its higher clocks could give it an edge in latency-sensitive workloads that do not scale with memory bandwidth. The lower TDP and lack of power connectors make it more suitable for compact or mobile systems. In the OpenCL benchmark, it trails by only 2.6%, despite having half the shaders and a quarter of the memory bandwidth, which highlights the efficiency of the Maxwell architecture.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The most obvious divergence is in architecture: Kepler (GK104) versus Maxwell (GM107). The die size differs significantly, with the K4200 at 294 mm² and the GTX 960A at 148 mm². Transistor counts are 3,540 million versus 1,870 million, though density is similar (12.0M / mm² vs 12.6M / mm²).

Clock speeds favor the GTX 960A, with a base of 1097 MHz and boost of 1176 MHz, compared to the K4200’s 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the K4200 runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960A runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory size (4 GB vs 2 GB), bus width (256-bit vs 128-bit), and bandwidth (172.8 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s) all favor the Quadro.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the K4200: 1344 shading units versus 640, 112 TMUs versus 40, and 32 ROPs versus 16. Consequently, the K4200 has higher pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 47.04 GTexel/s), as well as FP32 (2.107 TFLOPS vs 1.505 TFLOPS). Power draw is lower on the GTX 960A (75 W vs 108 W), and it uses no power connectors, while the K4200 requires a 6-pin connector. The K4200 is a single-slot card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the GTX 960A is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent outputs. The K4200 was released earlier (2014-07-21) than the GTX 960A (2015-03-12), and the K4200 has a successor (Quadro Maxwell), while the GTX 960A has none listed.