Quadro K4200 vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 and Quadro K4200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
33.49
+199%

Pro Vega 64 outperforms K4200 by a whopping 199% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking158417
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.08
Power efficiency9.267.17
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameVega 10GK104
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date27 June 2017 (7 years ago)22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$854.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores40961344
Core clock speed1250 MHz771 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz784 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt108 Watt
Texture fill rate345.687.81
Floating-point processing power11.06 TFLOPS2.107 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs256112

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm241 mm
WidthIGP1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1350 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s172.8 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.125+
CUDA-3.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 64 33.49
+199%
Quadro K4200 11.21

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro Vega 64 12920
+199%
Quadro K4200 4326

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 64 71298
+491%
Quadro K4200 12067

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 64 73608
+493%
Quadro K4200 12406

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.49 11.21
Recency 27 June 2017 22 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 108 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 198.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro K4200, on the other hand, has 131.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4200 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Quadro K4200

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 19 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 155 votes

Rate Quadro K4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.