AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD FirePro D300 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 split their two benchmark matchups almost perfectly, with each card claiming one victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro D300 posts a score of 19,515 against the Quadro K5200’s 19,024, giving AMD a 2.6% lead. That margin is modest but consistent across the board, as the FirePro’s average benchmark score of 19,637 edges out the Quadro’s 19,602 by a slim 0.2% — a statistical tie in practical terms.

The tables turn in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro K5200 scores 20,180 versus the FirePro D300’s 19,759. That 2.1% difference flips the win to NVIDIA, and it is worth remembering the Vulkan result is the higher of the two scores for both cards — the Quadro’s Vulkan score of 20,180 is its best showing, while the FirePro’s Vulkan figure of 19,759 also beats its OpenCL result. The data suggests NVIDIA’s architecture extracts more performance from the Vulkan API, while AMD’s GCN 1.0 design holds its own in OpenCL workloads.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both cards occupy the same percentile tier at 64% versus all GPUs, reinforcing how closely matched they are in aggregate. The nearest rival data confirms this: the FirePro D300’s average score of 19,637 is just 0.2% above the Quadro K5200, and the Quadro returns the favor with a -0.2% delta when viewed from its perspective. For context, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT sits 0.6% above the FirePro and 0.8% above the Quadro, while the Radeon RX 7900 XTX trails both by roughly 1% to 1.2% — an unusual result that highlights how synthetic benchmarks can compress differences across very different hardware generations.

The per-test deltas are larger than the average gaps, which is typical for workload-specific behavior. The FirePro’s 2.6% OpenCL win is its biggest margin, while the Quadro’s 2.1% Vulkan advantage is its strongest. Neither card dominates the other by a wide margin in any single test, and the win count is dead even at one apiece. For buyers prioritizing one API over the other, the choice is clear — but for general-purpose compute, the two are nearly interchangeable.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has a marginal edge, with an average score of 19,637 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 19,602 — a difference of just 0.2%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The FirePro D300 wins that test with 19,515 points, beating the Quadro K5200’s 19,024 by 2.6%.

Q: Which card performs better in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Quadro K5200 takes the Vulkan test with 20,180 points, outpacing the FirePro D300’s 19,759 by 2.1%.

Q: Do both cards have the same production status?

A: Yes, both the AMD FirePro D300 and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 are listed as End-of-life products.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The FirePro D300 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro K5200 features 8 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit memory bus.

Q: Are there any differences in display outputs?

A: Yes — the FirePro D300 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the Quadro K5200 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro D300 is the pick for OpenCL-heavy compute tasks. Its 2.6% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, coupled with a higher average benchmark score of 19,637, makes it the safer choice for applications that lean on this API. The card’s higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² versus the Quadro’s 12.6M per mm²) suggests a more compact, efficient design for its 2,800 million transistors, even though both cards share the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The FirePro also offers a more flexible display setup with four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which suits multi-monitor workstations that rely on DisplayPort connectivity.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins in Vulkan scenarios, posting a 2.1% higher score than the FirePro. That margin, combined with the fact that the Vulkan result is the Quadro’s strongest benchmark score overall, points to better API optimization for modern workloads. The Quadro’s 8 GB memory capacity is its most obvious practical advantage — four times the FirePro’s 2 GB — which matters for large datasets or texture-heavy rendering jobs where memory footprint is the bottleneck. The card also delivers higher theoretical throughput across the board: 3.553 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.176 TFLOPS, 148.0 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s, and 37.01 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s. Those numbers suggest the Quadro has more raw headroom for compute and graphics work, even if the synthetic benchmarks show a near tie.

For users who want a single-slot solution, the FirePro D300 fits that requirement, while the Quadro K5200 is dual-slot. The FirePro also has a shorter length at 242 mm (9.5 inches) compared to the Quadro’s 267 mm (10.5 inches), which can matter in compact chassis. The Quadro, however, includes a 6-pin power connector, while the FirePro’s power connector situation is not specified — both cards share a 150 W TDP and a suggested 450 W power supply.

# Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in core configuration and memory. The Quadro K5200 packs 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units, while the FirePro D300 offers 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is roughly 80% more shading units and 140% more TMUs on the NVIDIA side, which explains its higher texture and pixel rates. Memory capacity differs sharply: 8 GB on the Quadro versus 2 GB on the FirePro, both GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro’s memory clock runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) yielding 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro’s memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) for 162.6 GB/s.

Clock speeds also differ. The Quadro has a base clock of 667 MHz and a boost clock of 771 MHz, while the FirePro lists no base or boost clock figures in the data — only its memory clock. Physical dimensions vary, with the FirePro measuring 242 mm (9.5 inches) in length and the Quadro at 267 mm (10.5 inches) with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The FirePro is single-slot, the Quadro dual-slot. Display outputs differ, as noted: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro specifies a 6-pin power connector, while the FirePro does not list one.

# Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro D300 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Pitcairn chip, part of the FirePro Data Center (Dx00) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip, belonging to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the similarities end there. The FirePro’s die size is 212 mm² with 2,800 million transistors, while the Quadro’s die is 561 mm² with 7,080 million transistors — a massive difference in physical size and transistor count. The FirePro has higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² versus the Quadro’s 12.6M per mm², indicating a more tightly packed design despite the smaller absolute numbers.

Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as those fields are null for both. FP16 performance is also absent from both specifications, leaving FP32 as the primary compute metric — where the Quadro’s 3.553 TFLOPS more than doubles the FirePro’s 2.176 TFLOPS in raw terms. API support is nearly identical: both offer DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2, with the Quadro’s Vulkan version slightly newer at 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170. The FirePro’s predecessor is the FirePro Terascale, and its successor is the Radeon Instinct, while the Quadro K5200 follows the Quadro Fermi and leads to the Quadro Maxwell. The FirePro launched earlier, on 2014-01-17, with the Quadro following on 2014-07-21. Both are end-of-life products today.