NVIDIA Quadro K4200 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2075 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12,313 points against 10,400 points for the Tesla C2075. That is an 18.4% advantage for the Quadro K4200, a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite both being professional-grade products.

To put that OpenCL score in context, the Quadro K4200 lands at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 12,398 across all recorded tests. The Tesla C2075 sits at the 48th percentile, with an average score of 10,400 from its single recorded benchmark. The percentile gap is modest, only four points, but the raw score difference is meaningful for compute workloads that scale with shading throughput and texture rate.

The Quadro K4200's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm, which averages 12,625 points (1.8% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 points (2.5% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 at 12,773 points (2.9% ahead). On the other side, the GeForce GTX 960A trails at 11,998 points, which is 3.3% behind the Quadro K4200. This cluster of scores around the 12,000 to 12,800 range shows that the Quadro K4200 is competitive with a broad set of GPUs from multiple generations and market segments.

The Tesla C2075's nearest rivals tell a similar story at a lower performance level. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M averages 10,362 points, just 0.4% behind the Tesla. The AMD Radeon RX 550X sits 0.8% ahead at 10,481 points, and the GeForce GTX 950A trails by 1.2% at 10,273 points. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X leads this small group at 10,582 points, 1.7% ahead. The Tesla C2075 is essentially bracketed by entry-level and midrange mobile GPUs from a much later era, which indicates how far GPU compute performance has advanced since its release.

In the Vulkan benchmark, only the Quadro K4200 has a recorded score: 12,482 points. The Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan score in the database, which aligns with its older feature set. The Quadro K4200's Vulkan result is slightly higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the card handles both APIs consistently well.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, while the Tesla C2075 uses the GF110 chip from the Fermi 2.0 architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different process nodes: the Kepler chip uses 28 nm, while the Fermi chip uses the older 40 nm process.

This process difference has a dramatic effect on transistor density. The GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GF110 contains 3,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 520 mm² die, for a density of only 5.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Kepler chip achieves roughly double the transistor density of the Fermi chip, which explains how it delivers significantly higher performance despite having a physically smaller die.

The compute resources differ sharply in configuration. The Quadro K4200 carries 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 has only 448 shading units and 56 texture mapping units, though it does have more ROPs at 48. The pixel rate of the Quadro K4200 is 21.95 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the Tesla, and the texture rate difference is even larger: 87.81 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating for the Quadro K4200 is 2.107 TFLOPS, while the Tesla C2075 is rated at 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The Quadro K4200 delivers roughly twice the single-precision compute throughput of the Tesla C2075.

Memory architecture also differs. The Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 has more capacity at 6 GB, also GDDR5, on a wider 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 150.3 GB/s. The effective memory clock tells the story: the Quadro K4200 runs at 5.4 Gbps effective, while the Tesla C2075 runs at 3.1 Gbps effective. The Tesla's wider bus compensates partially, but not enough to overcome the Quadro's faster memory.

API support shows another generational gap. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K4200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Tesla C2075 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro K4200 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Tesla C2075 has only 1x DVI. This reflects their intended roles, with the Quadro serving workstation display needs and the Tesla focused on compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is faster, scoring 12,313 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to 10,400 for the Tesla C2075, an 18.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Tesla C2075 support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan score is recorded for the Tesla C2075, and its API list includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 only. The Quadro K4200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and has a recorded Vulkan score of 12,482.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro K4200 has 4 GB. The Quadro has higher memory bandwidth at 172.8 GB/s versus 150.3 GB/s for the Tesla.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Tesla C2075 has a TDP of 247 W, uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and requires a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, compared to 448 for the Tesla C2075. The Quadro also has 112 TMUs versus 56, though the Tesla has more ROPs at 48 versus 32.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K4200 was released in July 2014, and the Tesla C2075 was released in July 2011.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 28 nm for the Quadro K4200 versus 40 nm for the Tesla C2075. Transistor count is 3,540 million versus 3,000 million, with die size at 294 mm² versus 520 mm². Transistor density is 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro, compared to 5.8M per mm² for the Tesla.

Compute resources: the Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla C2075 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Pixel rate is 21.95 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 87.81 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.107 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Memory: the Quadro K4200 has 4 GB at 5.4 Gbps effective with a 256-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla C2075 has 6 GB at 3.1 Gbps effective with a 384-bit bus and 150.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Power and cooling: the Quadro K4200 has a 108 W TDP, is single-slot, uses one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The Tesla C2075 has a 247 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Physical dimensions: the Quadro K4200 is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall. The Tesla C2075 is 248 mm long with no height recorded. The Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the Tesla has only 1x DVI. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the Tesla does not. The Quadro was released in July 2014, the Tesla in July 2011.

The generation names reflect their lineages: the Quadro K4200 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, while the Tesla C2075 belongs to the Tesla Fermi (x20xx) generation. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The Tesla's predecessor is Tesla and its successor is Tesla Kepler.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4200 wins in raw compute performance, efficiency, and modern API support. Its 18.4% OpenCL advantage over the Tesla C2075 makes it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that rely on FP32 throughput. The 2.107 TFLOPS rating versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS means workloads that are shader-bound or texture-bound will complete substantially faster on the Quadro. The higher texture rate of 87.81 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s reinforces this advantage for any workload that exercises the TMUs heavily.

The Quadro K4200 also wins on power efficiency. Its 108 W TDP is less than half of the Tesla's 247 W, and it requires a 300 W PSU versus 550 W. This makes it feasible in systems with modest power supplies and simpler cooling requirements, as the single-slot design and single 6-pin connector are easier to accommodate than the dual-slot Tesla with its 6-pin plus 8-pin configuration.

The Vulkan support on the Quadro K4200 is another clear win. With a recorded Vulkan score of 12,482, it can handle modern APIs that the Tesla C2075 cannot use at all. The display outputs also favor the Quadro, with dual DisplayPort 1.2 connections allowing multi-monitor workstation setups, while the Tesla offers only a single DVI port.

The Tesla C2075 wins in two specific areas. First, it has 6 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which matters for workloads that need to hold larger datasets on the GPU. Second, it has a wider 384-bit memory bus and 48 ROPs versus 32, which could benefit certain memory-intensive or rasterization-heavy workloads, though its lower memory clock of 3.1 Gbps effective limits the practical impact of the wider bus.

For compute tasks that fit within 4 GB and benefit from high FP32 throughput, the Quadro K4200 is the better choice. For workloads that require more than 4 GB of GPU memory and can tolerate lower compute throughput, the Tesla C2075 retains some relevance, though its higher power draw and lack of Vulkan support make it less practical in modern systems.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the stronger GPU by a significant margin. Its 18.4% OpenCL lead over the Tesla C2075, combined with roughly double the FP32 throughput, nearly triple the texture rate, and support for Vulkan, makes it the better choice for almost any compute or workstation task. The Quadro also achieves this with less than half the TDP, a smaller physical footprint, and more flexible display outputs.

The Tesla C2075's only advantages are its 6 GB memory capacity and its wider 384-bit memory bus, along with a higher ROP count. These features matter for niche workloads that need more than 4 GB of GPU memory, but the practical impact is limited by the Tesla's lower memory bandwidth of 150.3 GB/s and its significantly lower compute throughput. The Tesla also lacks Vulkan support, which restricts its usefulness in modern software environments.

For system builders choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the Quadro K4200 is the rational pick for general compute, workstation graphics, and any workload that leverages shader or texture performance. The Tesla C2075 should only be considered when the 6 GB memory capacity is an absolute requirement and the workload can tolerate its lower compute performance and higher power draw. The percentile rankings reinforce this conclusion: the Quadro sits at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla sits at the 48th percentile.

The Quadro K4200's position among its nearest rivals, within 3% of the Tesla K20Xm and the GeForce GTX 670, shows it delivers competitive performance for its era. The Tesla C2075's rivals, including mobile GPUs like the Radeon RX 6500M and GeForce GTX 950A, are all in a lower performance class. The data suggests that if both cards are available at similar effort to acquire, the Quadro K4200 is the better investment for anyone building a legacy workstation or compute system.