NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits the two benchmark disciplines evenly, with each GPU claiming one decisive victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 posts a score of 12313 against the GeForce MX350's 8689, a margin of 41.7%. That is not a narrow lead; it is a dominant showing in compute-oriented workloads, reflecting the Quadro's professional-grade architecture and substantially wider memory interface. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the situation reverses. The GeForce MX350 scores 13077, edging out the Quadro K4200's 12482 by 4.5%. While the Vulkan margin is far smaller than the OpenCL gap, it still flips the overall head-to-head record to one win apiece.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K4200's average benchmark score is 12398, placing it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm at 12625 (1.8% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12710 (2.5% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 at 12773 (2.9% faster). It also sits 3.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 960A's 11998. The MX350, by contrast, averages 10883, which lands at the 49th percentile. Its closest competition includes the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10804 (0.7% slower), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 10761 (1.1% slower), the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11047 (1.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 550 at 11075 (1.7% faster). The Quadro K4200 is therefore the stronger overall performer in aggregate, sitting roughly 13.9% above the MX350's average score, but the MX350 demonstrates that it can win in a modern graphics API context.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling because it is not merely a small edge. A 41.7% delta in favor of the Quadro K4200 suggests that the older card's larger shading unit count, 1344 versus 640, and its 256-bit memory bus provide a substantial advantage in compute-heavy tasks that scale with parallel throughput and memory bandwidth. The MX350's Vulkan win, while smaller, indicates that its Pascal architecture has better optimization for contemporary graphics workloads, likely due to its newer feature set and higher clock speeds.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the superior choice for raw compute performance and OpenCL-driven tasks. Its average benchmark score of 12398 versus the MX350's 10883 is a clear gap, and its 52nd percentile ranking versus the MX350's 49th percentile reinforces that it sits higher in the overall performance distribution. The Quadro also holds a commanding 41.7% lead in OpenCL, which is the kind of margin that matters for users running professional applications that rely on general-purpose GPU compute.

The GeForce MX350, however, is not without its own case. It wins the Vulkan benchmark by 4.5%, and Vulkan is a modern cross-platform graphics API with growing adoption. For users whose workloads are primarily graphics-oriented rather than compute-oriented, the MX350's newer architecture and higher clock speeds make it a credible alternative. Its 14 nm process node, compared to the Quadro's 28 nm, also suggests better power efficiency, though the database does not provide direct efficiency metrics for comparison.

The verdict depends on what the user prioritizes. If the workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, the Quadro K4200 is the clear winner. If the workload is dominated by Vulkan graphics, the MX350 takes the edge. For a balanced assessment, the Quadro K4200's higher aggregate score and percentile placement give it the overall nod, but the MX350 is the better pick for modern graphics API scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4200 wins decisively in OpenCL compute. Its 12313 score versus 8689 is a 41.7% advantage, and its architecture supports this: 1344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, paired with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. These specifications translate directly into higher pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s) and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s) compared to the MX350's 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s. Note that the Quadro has a higher texture rate, while the MX350 has a slightly higher pixel rate. The Quadro's FP32 throughput is 2.107 TFLOPS, above the MX350's 1.879 TFLOPS, which explains its OpenCL dominance. This GPU is built for professional workloads, with a single-slot design, 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 108 W TDP. Its display outputs include 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, making it suitable for workstation setups.

The GeForce MX350 wins in Vulkan, scoring 13077 versus 12482, a 4.5% margin. Its Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm Samsung process, features 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its clocks are significantly higher: 1354 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost, versus the Quadro's 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. The MX350's memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. While its 2 GB capacity is half the Quadro's, the MX350 supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. The MX350 has no power connector and a 20 W TDP, indicating it is designed for portable devices where power draw is a primary concern.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200, with an average score of 12398 compared to the GeForce MX350's 10883, a difference of roughly 13.9%.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The Quadro K4200 scores 12313 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX350 scores 8689, giving the Quadro a 41.7% lead.

Q: Does the GeForce MX350 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 13077 against the Quadro K4200's 12482, a 4.5% margin.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The GeForce MX350, with a base clock of 1354 MHz and boost clock of 1468 MHz, compared to the Quadro K4200's 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, while the MX350 has a TDP of 20 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro K4200 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The MX350, in contrast, uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107S chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 3,300 million transistors into a much smaller 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². This density advantage reflects the newer manufacturing process.

The Quadro K4200 is part of the Quadro Kepler generation (Kx200 series) and was released in July 2014, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The MX350 belongs to the GeForce MX generation (3xx series) and was released in February 2020. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the MX350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Quadro's display outputs are fixed at 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the MX350's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate or omit those features. The MX350 has a rated FP16 performance of 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are substantial. The Quadro K4200 has 1344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro's base clock is 771 MHz with a boost of 784 MHz, compared to the MX350's 1354 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost. Memory differs sharply: the Quadro offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX350 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the MX350.

Rasterization rates also differ. The Quadro has a pixel rate of 21.95 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 87.81 GTexel/s. The MX350 has a pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.98 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350. The Quadro carries a 108 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W. The MX350 has a 20 W TDP and no power connector. The Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the MX350 has no listed dimensions, consistent with its mobile-oriented design. The Quadro's bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The production status of both is end-of-life.