G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

Quadro K4200

2014

Why buy it

✅6.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 37.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $110 MSRP).
❌44% higher power demand at 108W vs 75W.
❌41.8% longer card at 241mm vs 170mm.

Radeon RX 460

2016

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 37.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($110 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 108W, a 33W reduction.
✅Measures 170mm instead of 241mm, a 71mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro K4200 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.

Quadro K4200

2014

Radeon RX 460

2016

Why buy it

✅6.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 37.3 vs 0 G3D/$ ($110 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 108W, a 33W reduction.
✅Measures 170mm instead of 241mm, a 71mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 37.3 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $110 MSRP).
❌44% higher power demand at 108W vs 75W.
❌41.8% longer card at 241mm vs 170mm.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro K4200 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.

Quick Answers

So, is Quadro K4200 better than Radeon RX 460?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Quadro K4200 averages 6.9% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 4,332 vs 4,099 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Quadro K4200 is the overall package: you are getting no meaningful modern upscaling stack.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Quadro K4200 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Quadro K4200 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Quadro K4200 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $110 MSRP, and you are getting 6.9% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 5.7% higher G3D Mark. Radeon RX 460 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does Radeon RX 460 make more sense than Quadro K4200?

Yes. Radeon RX 460 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (75W vs 108W), and staying closer to $110 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Quadro K4200. The trade-off is that Quadro K4200 currently gives you 5.7% higher G3D Mark and 6.9% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. Radeon RX 460 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Quadro K4200 Benchmark Check

Radeon RX 460 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
1080p
low	78 FPS	41 FPS
medium	67 FPS	26 FPS
high	53 FPS	19 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	11 FPS
1440p
low	68 FPS	28 FPS
medium	60 FPS	17 FPS
high	42 FPS	10 FPS
ultra	27 FPS	5 FPS
4K
low	25 FPS	10 FPS
medium	23 FPS	7 FPS
high	15 FPS	4 FPS
ultra	13 FPS	3 FPS

Open Quadro K4200 Open Radeon RX 460

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
1080p
low	79 FPS	79 FPS
medium	56 FPS	51 FPS
high	43 FPS	38 FPS
ultra	27 FPS	22 FPS
1440p
low	44 FPS	37 FPS
medium	29 FPS	27 FPS
high	21 FPS	17 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	12 FPS
4K
low	17 FPS	10 FPS
medium	11 FPS	8 FPS
high	9 FPS	6 FPS
ultra	6 FPS	4 FPS

Open Quadro K4200 Open Radeon RX 460

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
1080p
low	195 FPS	184 FPS
medium	156 FPS	148 FPS
high	130 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	92 FPS
1440p
low	146 FPS	138 FPS
medium	117 FPS	111 FPS
high	97 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	73 FPS	69 FPS
4K
low	97 FPS	92 FPS
medium	78 FPS	74 FPS
high	65 FPS	61 FPS
ultra	49 FPS	46 FPS

Open Quadro K4200 Open Radeon RX 460

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
1080p
low	131 FPS	139 FPS
medium	103 FPS	110 FPS
high	88 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	77 FPS
1440p
low	99 FPS	101 FPS
medium	79 FPS	82 FPS
high	68 FPS	69 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	55 FPS
4K
low	58 FPS	58 FPS
medium	44 FPS	45 FPS
high	35 FPS	35 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	26 FPS

Open Quadro K4200 Open Radeon RX 460

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K4200 and Radeon RX 460

Quadro K4200

The Quadro K4200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 771 MHz to 784 MHz. It has 1344 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 108W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,332 points. Launch price was $854.99.

Radeon RX 460

The Radeon RX 460 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 8 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1090 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,099 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Quadro K4200 scores 4,332 versus the Radeon RX 460's 4,099 — the Quadro K4200 leads by 5.7%. The Quadro K4200 is built on Kepler while the Radeon RX 460 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,344 (Quadro K4200) vs 896 (Radeon RX 460). Raw compute: 2.107 TFLOPS (Quadro K4200) vs 2.15 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 460). Boost clocks: 784 MHz vs 1200 MHz.

Feature	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
G3D Mark Score	4,332+6%	4,099
Architecture	Kepler	GCN 4.0
Process Node	28 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	1344+50%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.107 TFLOPS	2.15 TFLOPS+2%
Boost Clock	784 MHz	1200 MHz+53%
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	112+100%	56
L1 Cache	112 KB	224 KB+100%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Quadro K4200) vs 1 MB (Radeon RX 460) — the Radeon RX 460 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12_0 (Quadro K4200) vs 12 (FL 12_0) (Radeon RX 460). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.

Feature	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
DirectX	12_0	12 (FL 12_0)
Max Displays	3	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 2nd Gen (Quadro K4200) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon RX 460). Decoder: NVDEC 1st Gen vs UVD 6.3.

Feature	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
Encoder	NVENC 2nd Gen	VCE 3.4
Decoder	NVDEC 1st Gen	UVD 6.3
Codecs	—	H.264,H.265/HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro K4200 draws 108W versus the Radeon RX 460's 75W — a 36.1% difference. The Radeon RX 460 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K4200) vs 350W (Radeon RX 460). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 241mm vs 170mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.

Feature	Quadro K4200	Radeon RX 460
TDP	108W	75W-31%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	241mm	170mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Perf/Watt	40.1	54.7+36%

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro K4200 launched at $0 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 460 launched at $110. The Quadro K4200 costs 100+% less ($110 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): Infinity (Quadro K4200) vs 37.3 (Radeon RX 460) — the Quadro K4200 offers Infinity% better value. The Radeon RX 460 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2014).