NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents an extreme generational contrast. The Quadro K4200, a Kepler-era workstation card from 2014, and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, a 2025 flagship, share the same manufacturer but little else in terms of capability. Based strictly on recorded measurements, the RTX PRO 6000 is the superior choice for any modern, demanding workload. Its raw compute and memory specifications dwarf the older card. However, the benchmark database presents an intriguing nuance: the K4200 scores higher in its recorded tests, 12,398 average versus 11,088, but these tests are not directly comparable. The K4200 has results in Geekbench OpenCL (12,313) and Vulkan (12,482), while the RTX PRO 6000 has a single result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (11,088). The verdict depends on the workload and software environment. For professionals running modern DX12 or Vulkan 1.4 applications that can utilize massive memory pools and advanced features, the RTX PRO 6000 is the only logical choice from a specification standpoint. For legacy applications or specific compute tests where the older card has a recorded score, the K4200 shows competitive numbers, but its 4 GB memory and 28 nm process limit its relevance. The RTX PRO 6000, with its 96 GB of GDDR7, 109.7 TFLOPS FP32, and active production status, is the definitive pick for current and future professional tasks. Users with a strict need for legacy compatibility might find the K4200 acceptable, but the data overwhelmingly points to the newer card as the primary investment.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs spans over a decade of NVIDIA design. The Quadro K4200 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It houses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². In contrast, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB202 chip, built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer chip contains a staggering 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, achieving a density of 122.9M per mm². This represents a massive leap in manufacturing technology and complexity. The K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RTX PRO 6000 has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs, along with 188 dedicated RT cores and 752 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the older Kepler design. The K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the RTX PRO 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), indicating support for the latest rendering features. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the newer card supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to the K4200's Vulkan 1.2.175. The bus interface also differs, with the K4200 using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the RTX PRO 6000 using PCIe 5.0 x16, offering significantly more bandwidth for data transfer. The power delivery requirements also reflect the performance gap: the K4200 has a 108 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin connector, while the RTX PRO 6000 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 1x 16-pin connector.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data and specifications indicate distinct areas of dominance. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q wins decisively in every category of raw specification. Its memory subsystem is generations ahead: 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus delivers 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth, a massive advantage over the K4200's 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s. This makes the RTX PRO 6000 the clear winner for tasks involving large datasets, such as AI training, complex 3D rendering, or high-resolution video editing. Its compute capabilities are similarly dominant, with 109.7 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 (1:1) performance, dwarfing the K4200's 2.107 TFLOPS FP32. The RTX PRO 6000 also has a much higher pixel rate (437.8 GPixel/s vs 21.95 GPixel/s) and texture rate (1,714.6 GTexel/s vs 87.81 GTexel/s), making it superior for graphics-intensive workloads. The K4200's wins are more subtle and data-specific. In the recorded Geekbench tests, the K4200 scores 12,313 in OpenCL and 12,482 in Vulkan. These scores put it in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. The RTX PRO 6000's single 3DMark result scores 11,088, placing it in the 50th percentile. However, these tests are not cross-comparable. A user running Geekbench might see the K4200 as a capable performer, but this is likely due to the test's nature. The K4200 also has a lower power draw at 108 W, which could be a point in its favor for systems with limited power delivery, but this is a minor advantage given its performance ceiling. Ultimately, the RTX PRO 6000 wins in any scenario that requires modern features, high memory capacity, or extreme compute throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a higher recorded average benchmark score of 12,398, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has an average score of 11,088 from its recorded tests.

Q: What are the major differences in memory capacity and type?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX PRO 6000 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q includes 188 dedicated RT cores, a feature that is entirely absent from the Quadro K4200, which has no RT cores listed.

Q: What is the difference in their production status?

A: The Quadro K4200 is listed as "End-of-life" and was released in 2014. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q is listed as "Active" and was released in 2025.

Q: Which card consumes more power?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q has a higher TDP of 300 W, while the Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W.

Q: What are the differences in the supported PCIe interfaces?

A: The Quadro K4200 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q uses the much newer PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

A direct head-to-head comparison is complicated by the lack of overlapping benchmark tests. The database shows no shared tests between the two cards, so a direct score comparison is impossible. However, the individual results are telling. The Quadro K4200 achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 12,313 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,482. Its average benchmark score is 12,398. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, delta -1.8%) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, delta -2.5%), are within a few percentage points, showing that its performance is consistent with other GPUs in its class. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, on the other hand, has a single recorded score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 of 11,088. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, has an identical score of 11,088, with a delta of 0%. The AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, delta 0.1%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047, delta 0.4%) are also very close. The data shows that while the K4200 has a higher raw average score, the tests are entirely different. The RTX PRO 6000's result is from a demanding modern DX12 benchmark, while the K4200's scores come from API-level compute tests. In terms of pure specification-driven performance, the RTX PRO 6000's 109.7 TFLOPS FP32 is over 50 times higher than the K4200's 2.107 TFLOPS. Similarly, its memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s is over 10 times higher. These figures suggest that in any modern, memory-intensive workload, the RTX PRO 6000 would outperform the K4200 by a massive margin, despite the benchmark scores suggesting a closer race.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 92,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 750 mm² |

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | 1035 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 784 MHz | 2280 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 96 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 512 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 1.79 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 1344 | 24064 |

| TMUs | 112 | 752 |

| ROPs | 32 | 192 |

| RT Cores | None | 188 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 752 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.95 GPixel/s | 437.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 87.81 GTexel/s | 1,714.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.107 TFLOPS | 109.7 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not available | 109.7 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 108 W | 300 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2025-03-17 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | Not available | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |