NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between these two Kepler-era NVIDIA cards is remarkably lopsided when looking at raw compute, but the story flips entirely depending on the API tested. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce GTX TITAN posts a score of 24,873 against the Quadro K4200's 12,313, a decisive 102% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a doubling of performance in a compute-oriented workload that stresses raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth.

The Vulkan results, however, invert the relationship. The Quadro K4200 scores 12,482 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX TITAN manages only 10,027. That gives the Quadro a 19.7% lead, a substantial margin that suggests the two cards have very different strengths depending on the graphics API in use. The Vulkan delta is not a fluke; it reflects architectural priorities that favor the professional card in certain rendering paths.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the GTX TITAN sits at 14,373, while the Quadro K4200 averages 12,398. The TITAN's overall average is about 15.9% higher, but this aggregate figure hides the fact that the Quadro wins the newer API test outright. The percentile rankings underscore the gap: the TITAN lands in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 52nd percentile, a modest but real separation.

The nearest rival data provides context for how each card sits in the broader market. The GTX TITAN's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14,385, a mere 0.1% difference, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M at 14,404, which is 0.2% behind. These are effectively statistical ties. The Quadro K4200, meanwhile, trades blows with the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, 1.8% ahead of the Quadro) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, 2.5% ahead). The Quadro's nearest rival list shows it is competitive with a much more modern mobile chip, which is notable for a card from the Kx200 generation.

The single win for each card in the head-to-head tests means the overall score is 1-1, but the magnitude of the OpenCL victory is far greater in absolute terms. A 102% lead in one test versus a 19.7% lead in the other suggests the TITAN is the compute monster, while the Quadro punches above its weight in graphics-centric workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the Kepler architecture, but they are built on different silicon with substantially different configurations. The GTX TITAN uses the GK110 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, with 7,080 million transistors packed into a 561 mm² die. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip, also 28 nm from TSMC, but with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. That is exactly half the transistor count and roughly half the die area, which explains why the TITAN's transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus the Quadro's 12.0M per mm². The density difference is small, but the raw scale difference is enormous.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The TITAN houses 2,688 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The shading unit count is exactly double on the TITAN, and the TMU count is also double, while the ROP count is 50% higher. These are not incremental differences; the TITAN is in a different performance class on paper.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The TITAN runs at a base of 836 MHz with a boost of 876 MHz, while the Quadro operates at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. The TITAN's boost clock is nearly 100 MHz higher, which compounds the shading unit advantage. Memory clocks also differ: the TITAN's GDDR5 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) against the Quadro's 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). Combined with the bus width difference (384-bit versus 256-bit), the TITAN achieves 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro manages 172.8 GB/s.

The pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The TITAN delivers 49.06 GPixel/s and 196.2 GTexel/s, while the Quadro produces 21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.709 TFLOPS on the TITAN versus 2.107 TFLOPS on the Quadro, a 123% advantage. Neither card has dedicated RT or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, so the API feature set is identical.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The TITAN is rated at 250 W TDP with a dual-slot cooler and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, plus a 600 W suggested PSU. The Quadro K4200 is a 108 W card, single-slot, with just one 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The TITAN is 267 mm long, while the Quadro is 241 mm. Both are 111 mm tall, but the TITAN is 38 mm wide (dual-slot) against the Quadro's unspecified single-slot width.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX TITAN is the clear winner in any compute-heavy workload that leverages OpenCL. The 102% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not just a win; it is a dominance that stems from double the shading units, double the TMUs, higher clocks, and nearly double the memory bandwidth. For tasks like rendering, simulation, or any general-purpose GPU compute that uses OpenCL, the data strongly favors the TITAN. The 4.709 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than double the Quadro's 2.107 TFLOPS, and that raw throughput translates directly into the benchmark results.

The Quadro K4200, however, wins decisively in the Vulkan test. A 19.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan suggests that the Quadro's architecture, despite having half the shading units, is more efficient in this specific API. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and the Quadro's driver stack and hardware design may be better optimized for the draw-call and command-buffer patterns that Vulkan workloads generate. The Quadro also has a higher percentile ranking relative to its nearest rivals in some comparisons, though the aggregate average score still favors the TITAN.

For gaming or general graphics workloads that use Vulkan, the Quadro is the better choice based on the recorded data. For compute workloads that use OpenCL, the TITAN is the obvious pick. The 1-1 split in head-to-head wins makes it clear that neither card is universally superior; the choice depends entirely on the API and workload in question. The TITAN's higher average score (14,373 versus 12,398) is driven almost entirely by its OpenCL performance, while the Quadro's Vulkan win shows that it is not simply a weaker version of the same design.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN averages 14,373 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 averages 12,398, giving the TITAN roughly a 15.9% higher aggregate score.

Q: How much faster is the GTX TITAN in OpenCL?

A: The GTX TITAN scores 24,873 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro K4200's 12,313, which is a 102% advantage, meaning the TITAN is more than twice as fast in this particular test.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4200 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 12,482 against the GTX TITAN's 10,027, a 19.7% lead.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two cards?

A: The GTX TITAN has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a lower power requirement?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a 108 W TDP and requires a 300 W suggested PSU, while the GTX TITAN has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Kepler architecture, but the GTX TITAN uses the GK110 chip while the Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip, and both are fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The GTX TITAN uses the GK110 chip with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The TITAN's base clock is 836 MHz with an 876 MHz boost, versus the Quadro's 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. Memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the TITAN and 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) on the Quadro.

Memory capacity is 6 GB versus 4 GB, with bus widths of 384-bit and 256-bit, respectively. Bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s on the TITAN and 172.8 GB/s on the Quadro. The TITAN has 2,688 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the Quadro has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 49.06 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 196.2 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.709 TFLOPS versus 2.107 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs differ as well: the TITAN is 250 W with a dual-slot cooler, 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro is 108 W, single-slot, with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 on the TITAN versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro. Display outputs are 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 on the TITAN, versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 on the Quadro. The TITAN is 267 mm long and 38 mm wide, while the Quadro is 241 mm long and its width is not specified. The TITAN's launch MSRP was 999 USD; the Quadro has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two cards designed for different purposes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN is the compute powerhouse, with double the shading units, double the TMUs, more ROPs, higher clocks, and over 1.6 times the memory bandwidth of the Quadro K4200. Its 102% OpenCL lead is the single most decisive result in this comparison, and its average benchmark score of 14,373 places it in the 56th percentile of all GPUs. For anyone who needs raw FP32 compute, especially in OpenCL workloads, the TITAN is the superior choice without qualification.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200, however, demonstrates that raw specs are not the whole story. Its 19.7% Vulkan win over the TITAN, despite having half the shading units and lower clocks, indicates that the Quadro's design is more efficient in low-overhead graphics APIs. The Quadro also consumes less than half the power (108 W versus 250 W), fits in a single slot, and requires only a 300 W PSU, making it far easier to integrate into dense or constrained systems. Its 52nd percentile ranking is only four points below the TITAN, which is a modest gap given the hardware disparity.

The verdict depends on the workload. If the priority is compute throughput, especially OpenCL, the GTX TITAN is the clear choice. If the priority is Vulkan graphics performance, power efficiency, and physical footprint, the Quadro K4200 is the better pick. The 1-1 split in head-to-head wins means there is no universal winner; the correct selection is workload-dependent. The TITAN's higher average score and higher percentile make it the stronger all-rounder, but the Quadro's Vulkan advantage and lower power draw are significant for specific use cases. Neither card is modern, with the TITAN released in early 2013 and the Quadro in mid-2014, and both are end-of-life, but for legacy systems, the choice between them should be guided by the API and application that will be used most frequently.