AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 and AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects a clear generational shift. The RX 6500 XT, built on a modern 6 nm process with RDNA 2.0 architecture, dominates in every head-to-head comparison available, while the Quadro K4200, a Kepler-era workstation card from 2014, trails significantly in raw compute performance. The data shows a decisive victory for the AMD card in the two tests recorded, with the RX 6500 XT delivering scores that are roughly four times higher than the older NVIDIA offering.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins both recorded tests outright, leaving the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 with zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. The RX 6500 XT’s strengths are most apparent in compute-oriented workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 48,289 against the Quadro’s 12,313, which is a 74.5% delta in favor of AMD. Similarly, in Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6500 XT posts 54,724 versus 12,482 for the Quadro, a 77.2% margin. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a massive leap in performance that aligns with the architectural differences between the two cards.

The Quadro K4200 does not have a single benchmark win, but its profile is not without merit. Its 52nd percentile ranking among all GPUs is actually one point higher than the RX 6500 XT’s 51st percentile, despite the latter’s much higher raw scores. This suggests that the Quadro’s performance is more consistent across a broader range of legacy workloads, likely due to its wider 256-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s. However, in the specific tests measured here, it cannot compete with the RX 6500 XT’s sheer compute throughput. The RX 6500 XT’s wins are defined by its superior FP32 performance (5.765 TFLOPS vs 2.107 TFLOPS), higher clock speeds, and support for newer API features like DirectX 12 Ultimate.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is stark. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 294 mm² and 3,540 million transistors. This results in a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². In contrast, the RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm process, also from TSMC, but with a much smaller die of 107 mm² and 5,400 million transistors, yielding a density of 50.5 million per mm². This density advantage is a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing node, allowing AMD to pack nearly twice the transistors into a third of the silicon area.

Core configuration also differs significantly. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The RX 6500 XT has fewer shading units (1,024) and TMUs (64), but matches the ROP count at 32. More importantly, the RX 6500 XT includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler-based Quadro. The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different: the Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro’s wider bus gives it higher bandwidth (172.8 GB/s vs 143.9 GB/s), but the RX 6500 XT compensates with much faster effective memory speeds (18 Gbps vs 5.4 Gbps).

Clock speeds are another major divider. The Quadro K4200 runs at a base of 771 MHz with a boost of 784 MHz, while the RX 6500 XT operates at 2310 MHz base and 2815 MHz boost. This near-tripling of clock speed explains why the RX 6500 XT achieves higher pixel and texture rates (90.08 GPixel/s and 180.2 GTexel/s) compared to the Quadro (21.95 GPixel/s and 87.81 GTexel/s). The RX 6500 XT also supports FP16 compute at 11.53 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. API support diverges as well: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head benchmarks tell a clear story of AMD’s dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500 XT scores 48,289 against the Quadro K4200’s 12,313, a delta of -74.5% from AMD’s perspective. This means the Quadro delivers less than a quarter of the RX 6500 XT’s performance in this test. The margin is even larger in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6500 XT’s 54,724 score dwarfs the Quadro’s 12,482, resulting in a -77.2% delta. These are not close contests; the RX 6500 XT is operating in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RX 6500 XT’s average benchmark score is 11,842, while the Quadro K4200 averages 12,398. Interestingly, the Quadro actually has a higher average score despite losing both head-to-head tests. This is because the Quadro’s nearest rivals include cards like the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, -1.8% delta) and GeForce GTX 670 (12,773, -2.9% delta), which are close in performance. The RX 6500 XT’s nearest rivals are similar in score, with the GeForce GTX 1080 at 11,960 (-1% delta) and the GTX 960A at 11,998 (-1.3% delta). The data suggests that while the RX 6500 XT is far ahead of the Quadro in compute-heavy tasks, the Quadro holds its own in a more balanced average score, likely due to its superior memory bandwidth in certain legacy workloads.

The RX 6500 XT also shows its versatility in the PassMark suite, though these tests are not directly compared against the Quadro. It scores 9,608 in PassMark G3D, 4,456 in GPU Compute, and 815 in G2D. Its DirectX 9 score of 108 is notably higher than its DirectX 11 score of 90, and its DirectX 12 score drops to 38. These numbers indicate that the RX 6500 XT is strongest in older API workloads, which may explain why its percentile ranking (51st) is only slightly below the Quadro’s (52nd) despite the massive compute lead.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is clear for most users: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the superior performer in every measured benchmark. It offers roughly four times the OpenCL and Vulkan performance of the NVIDIA Quadro K4200, with a significantly newer architecture, higher clock speeds, and modern features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The RX 6500 XT also has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, which was stated at release, though pricing is not the focus of this analysis. For any workload that leverages compute shaders, Vulkan, or modern DirectX APIs, the RX 6500 XT is the only rational choice.

However, the Quadro K4200 is not without a niche. Its higher average benchmark score (12,398 vs 11,842) and better percentile ranking (52nd vs 51st) suggest it may be more consistent in legacy OpenGL or compute applications that benefit from its wider 256-bit memory bus. The Quadro’s 172.8 GB/s bandwidth is a real advantage in memory-bound tasks, and its single-slot design and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface make it a drop-in option for older workstation systems. If a user is locked into a legacy platform with PCIe 2.0 and requires a card that fits a single slot, the Quadro K4200 remains a viable, if dated, option.

For anyone building or upgrading a modern system, the RX 6500 XT is the clear winner. Its 6 nm process, 16 ray tracing cores, and 5.765 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are simply in a different league than the Quadro’s Kepler architecture. The RX 6500 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x4 interface is also a forward-looking choice, though it requires a compatible motherboard to achieve full bandwidth. The Quadro K4200 is end-of-life and was succeeded by Quadro Maxwell, while the RX 6500 XT’s successor is Navi III, indicating that AMD’s product is part of a more recent and active lineage.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins decisively, scoring 48,289 versus the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,313, a 74.5% delta in AMD’s favor.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6500 XT in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The RX 6500 XT scores 54,724 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 77.2% higher than the Quadro K4200’s 12,482.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 have any advantage in average benchmark scores?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4200 has a higher average benchmark score of 12,398 compared to the RX 6500 XT’s 11,842, despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s due to its 256-bit bus, while the RX 6500 XT has 143.9 GB/s on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT supports ray tracing, with 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has no ray tracing capability.

Q: What are the DirectX API support levels?

A: The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K4200 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The RX 6500 XT also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the Quadro’s Vulkan 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT |

|----------------|---------------------|------------------------|

| Architecture | Kepler | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 2310 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 784 MHz | 2815 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 143.9 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1344 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 112 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 16 |

| FP32 Performance | 2.107 TFLOPS | 5.765 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 21.95 GPixel/s | 90.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 87.81 GTexel/s | 180.2 GTexel/s |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2022-01-18 |