NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational chasm, with the mobile Ampere part dominating the older Kepler workstation card in every measurable benchmark, yet the K4200 retains relevance in specific legacy contexts. This analysis breaks down where each GPU wins, what the silicon differences mean, and what the raw scores reveal about their respective positions in the hardware landscape.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile wins both available head-to-head tests, securing 2 wins out of 2 comparisons. The Quadro K4200 records zero wins. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile’s victory is not marginal—it is a landslide across both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the mobile chip scores 57,915 against the K4200’s 12,313, a delta of 370.4%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile posts 55,812 versus 12,482, a 347.1% advantage. These are not close calls; they are generational obliterations.

The Quadro K4200’s only potential "win" is theoretical and outside raw compute: it is a single-slot, 108 W desktop card with a 256-bit memory bus, designed for professional workstations. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is an integrated-class (IGP) mobile part with a 75 W TDP, meaning it fits into laptops. The data does not show any test where the K4200 leads, so any claim of its superiority must rest on unbenchmarked qualities like display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) or its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface—fields where the mobile part’s "Portable Device Dependent" outputs are less defined.

Architecture Differences

The silicon tells the story of a massive technological leap. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is built on Ampere architecture using an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die. The Quadro K4200 uses Kepler on a 28 nm TSMC process, with just 3,540 million transistors on a slightly larger 294 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: 43.5M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm², a 3.6x density advantage for the newer chip.

Core counts reflect this disparity. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile fields 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs—but critically, it has no RT cores and no tensor cores, as Kepler predates ray tracing and AI acceleration. Clock speeds tell a counterintuitive story: the K4200 runs at a higher base clock (771 MHz vs 735 MHz) and boost (784 MHz vs 1035 MHz) is actually lower on the older card. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile’s boost of 1035 MHz is 32% higher, but the real gap emerges in IPC and feature set.

Memory architectures differ fundamentally. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K4200 uses 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but only achieves 172.8 GB/s due to slower 5.4 Gbps effective memory speed versus 12 Gbps on the newer card. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile’s narrower bus is compensated by much faster memory. API support further separates them: the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is categorically superior in every benchmarked metric. Its average benchmark score of 12,940 places it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4200’s 12,398 average sits at the 52nd percentile. The delta between them is small in aggregate (only 4.4%), but the head-to-head results show the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 370% faster in OpenCL and 347% faster in Vulkan—these are not averages, but direct comparisons on identical workloads.

Who should pick the Quadro K4200? Only a user constrained to a legacy PCIe 2.0 slot in a desktop workstation who requires its specific display outputs (DVI and DisplayPort 1.2) and does not run modern compute or gaming loads. The K4200’s higher texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 82.80) is its only numerical advantage, but that does not translate to any benchmark win. For anyone running current software, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is the only rational choice—it is faster, more feature-rich, and supports modern APIs. The K4200 is a relic; the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is a viable entry-level modern GPU despite being end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile in OpenCL?

A: It scores 57,915 versus the Quadro K4200’s 12,313, a 370.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 have any ray tracing hardware?

A: No. The K4200 has no RT cores or tensor cores, while the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile features 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile delivers 192.0 GB/s, which is 11.1% higher than the Quadro K4200’s 172.8 GB/s, despite the K4200 having a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile uses an 8 nm Samsung process, while the Quadro K4200 uses a 28 nm TSMC process. Transistor density is 43.5M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm².

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Are they in the same performance percentile?

A: The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro K4200 is in the 52nd percentile, but head-to-head scores show a 370% difference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark comparisons are the definitive evidence of generational superiority. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile achieves 57,915 points, which is 4.7 times the K4200’s 12,313 points. The delta of 370.4% is not a statistical anomaly; it reflects the Ampere architecture’s massive FP32 throughput of 5.299 TFLOPS versus Kepler’s 2.107 TFLOPS. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile also has 2,560 shading units, nearly double the K4200’s 1,344, and a higher boost clock of 1035 MHz versus 784 MHz.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 55,812 versus 12,482, a 347.1% lead. This test likely stresses the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile’s hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor cores, which the K4200 lacks entirely. The K4200’s older Vulkan 1.2.175 support also limits its ability to execute modern workloads efficiently. Even the K4200’s theoretical advantages—higher TMU count (112 vs 80) and texture rate (87.81 vs 82.80 GTexel/s)—fail to materialize into any benchmark win. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile’s FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 (5.299 TFLOPS), whereas the K4200 has no FP16 data, indicating a lack of support. Every measurable metric favors the newer chip.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals where the two diverge most sharply. Process node differs dramatically: 8 nm Samsung (RTX 3050 Ti Mobile) versus 28 nm TSMC (K4200). Transistors are 12,000 million versus 3,540 million, with die sizes of 276 mm² and 294 mm² respectively. Memory type is GDDR6 (12 Gbps effective) versus GDDR5 (5.4 Gbps effective), with bus widths of 128-bit and 256-bit, but bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile adds 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores; the K4200 has none.

Clock speeds are close at base (735 MHz vs 771 MHz), but boost diverges (1035 MHz vs 784 MHz). FP32 performance is 5.299 TFLOPS versus 2.107 TFLOPS, a 151% gap. Pixel rate is 33.12 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s, while texture rate slightly favors the K4200 at 87.81 GTexel/s versus 82.80. TDP is 75 W (IGP, no connectors) versus 108 W (single-slot, 1x 6-pin, 300 W suggested PSU). Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Dimensions for the K4200 are 241 mm length and 111 mm height; the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has no listed dimensions. API support favors the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 versus DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.