NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive generational victory for the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile over the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 in every recorded test. The database includes two head-to-head comparisons, and the RTX A2000 Mobile wins both by a massive margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518 points against the Quadro K4200’s 12,313 points, a delta of 359%. For the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 53,146 points versus 12,482 points for the Quadro K4200, representing a 325.8% advantage. These are not incremental improvements; they are full generational leaps in raw compute performance.

The average benchmark score across all recorded tests further illustrates the gap. The RTX A2000 Mobile holds an average score of 13,821, while the Quadro K4200’s average rests at 12,398. This places the RTX A2000 Mobile in the 55th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile. The delta between their average scores is roughly 11.5%, but this figure understates the reality of the head-to-head results because the Quadro K4200 only has two recorded benchmark entries in the database, both of which are compute-oriented. The RTX A2000 Mobile, by contrast, has nine recorded entries, including several DirectX tests where its performance is much stronger relative to its own average.

Looking at the RTX A2000 Mobile’s nearest rivals in the database, its average score of 13,821 places it just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 660M (13,812), 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT (13,745), and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13,871). It is also 1.5% behind the NVIDIA Tesla K10 (14,029). These comparisons show that while the RTX A2000 Mobile dominates the aging Quadro K4200, it sits in a competitive mid-range bracket relative to other GPUs in the database. The Quadro K4200’s nearest rivals tell a similar story: it trails the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625) by 1.8%, the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710) by 2.5%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773) by 2.9%, while leading the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (11,998) by 3.3%. This places the Quadro K4200 at the bottom of its immediate peer group, which is expected for a GPU released much earlier.

The biggest win for the RTX A2000 Mobile comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where its 359% lead is the single largest delta recorded between the two cards. The Vulkan test is slightly closer, but at 325.8% it is still an overwhelming victory. Both scores reflect the RTX A2000 Mobile’s modern architecture, which enables far higher throughput per clock and better utilization of compute resources.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 Mobile wins every benchmark category recorded in the database, so the use-case split is heavily skewed toward the newer card. For compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL and Vulkan, the RTX A2000 Mobile is clearly superior, beating the Quadro K4200 by more than three times in both tests. The RTX A2000 Mobile also has a full set of DirectX benchmarks in the database, including DirectX 9 (115 score), DirectX 10 (57), DirectX 11 (68), and DirectX 12 (47). These scores, while not directly compared to the Quadro K4200, indicate that the RTX A2000 Mobile is capable of handling legacy and modern graphics APIs alike. The Quadro K4200, however, has no recorded DirectX or PassMark scores in the database, so its performance in those areas cannot be quantified here.

The Quadro K4200 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only two entries, Geekbench OpenCL (12,313) and Geekbench Vulkan (12,482), are both far below the RTX A2000 Mobile’s scores. However, the Quadro K4200’s profile suggests it may still be relevant for specific legacy workloads. Its architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and its 256-bit memory bus provides 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is close to the RTX A2000 Mobile’s 192.0 GB/s. For tasks that rely on memory bandwidth rather than raw shading throughput, the Quadro K4200 might not be as far behind as the compute benchmarks suggest. Yet, the data does not include any memory-bandwidth-specific tests, so this remains speculative.

In practical terms, the RTX A2000 Mobile is the clear choice for any modern workload, including real-time ray tracing, AI inference, and high-resolution rendering. The Quadro K4200, with its older Kepler architecture, lacks hardware ray tracing and tensor cores, making it unsuitable for those tasks. The RTX A2000 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, which means newer games and applications that require Vulkan 1.3 or DirectX 12 Ultimate features will not run on the Quadro K4200.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The RTX A2000 Mobile uses the GA107 chip based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process from Samsung. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process from TSMC. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap: 8 nm allows for significantly higher transistor density (43.5 million transistors per square millimeter versus 12.0 million for the Quadro K4200) and lower power consumption per unit of performance.

The RTX A2000 Mobile has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the Quadro K4200 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. Despite the Quadro K4200 having a larger physical die, the RTX A2000 Mobile packs more than double the transistor count into a smaller area. The RTX A2000 Mobile also features 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation pipelines, compared to 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the Quadro K4200. The Quadro K4200 actually has more TMUs, but its lower clock speeds and older architecture limit their effectiveness.

The RTX A2000 Mobile includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the Quadro K4200. This is a fundamental difference: the RTX A2000 Mobile can accelerate ray-traced rendering and AI-based workflows, while the Quadro K4200 cannot. The RTX A2000 Mobile also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, delivering 8.637 TFLOPS for both data types. The Quadro K4200 has no FP16 support listed in the database, and its FP32 throughput is 2.107 TFLOPS. This means the RTX A2000 Mobile offers roughly four times the FP32 performance, and it can double that throughput for FP16 workloads where the Quadro K4200 cannot compete at all.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in technology. Both cards have 4 GB of VRAM, but the RTX A2000 Mobile uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro K4200 uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s. The Quadro K4200’s wider bus compensates for its slower memory clock, but the RTX A2000 Mobile still comes out ahead in raw bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ significantly: the RTX A2000 Mobile runs at 1215 MHz base and 1687 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4200 runs at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. The boost clock alone is more than double on the RTX A2000 Mobile.

Power and interface differences are notable. The RTX A2000 Mobile is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 95 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Quadro K4200 is a single-slot card with a 108 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested power supply of 300 W. The RTX A2000 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the Quadro K4200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the RTX A2000 Mobile’s outputs are portable-device dependent, while the Quadro K4200 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro K4200 has a physical length of 241 mm (9.5 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the RTX A2000 Mobile has no listed dimensions due to its mobile form factor.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX A2000 Mobile than the Quadro K4200 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56,518 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 359% higher than the Quadro K4200’s 12,313.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile leads with a score of 53,146 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 325.8% advantage over the Quadro K4200’s 12,482.

Q: Does the Quadro K4200 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro K4200 has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed in the database. The RTX A2000 Mobile includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro K4200 has 172.8 GB/s. The RTX A2000 Mobile is ahead by 19.2 GB/s.

Q: Can the Quadro K4200 run modern graphics APIs?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, but it lacks DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The RTX A2000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile has a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm², while the Quadro K4200 has 12.0 million per mm², a difference of 31.5 million per mm².

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Ampere (RTX A2000 Mobile) versus Kepler (Quadro K4200)
• Process node: 8 nm Samsung versus 28 nm TSMC
• Transistors: 8,700 million versus 3,540 million
• Die size: 200 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor density: 43.5M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 1215 MHz versus 771 MHz
• Boost clock: 1687 MHz versus 784 MHz
• Memory clock: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective)
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 192.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s
• Shading units: 2560 versus 1344
• Texture mapping units: 80 versus 112
• Raster operation pipelines: 48 versus 32
• Ray tracing cores: 20 versus none
• Tensor cores: 80 versus none
• Pixel rate: 80.98 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 135.0 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 8.637 TFLOPS versus 2.107 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 8.637 TFLOPS versus none listed
• TDP: 95 W versus 108 W
• Slot width: IGP versus single-slot
• Power connectors: none versus 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: none versus 300 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Release date: 2021-04-11 versus 2014-07-21
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing-M versus Quadro Fermi
• Successor: Ada-MW versus Quadro Maxwell
• Length: not listed versus 241 mm (9.5 inches)
• Height: not listed versus 111 mm (4.4 inches)