AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 leads with an average benchmark score of 19,602, while the AMD FirePro D500 trails at 18,533. This places the Quadro K5200 at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the FirePro D500's 62nd percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Quadro K5200 scores 20,180 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 18,533 for the FirePro D500, a decisive 8.9% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and what is the type?

A: The Quadro K5200 ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, whereas the FirePro D500 offers 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus. The Quadro's larger capacity is offset by lower bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs. 243.8 GB/s).

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply, while the FirePro D500 draws 274 W and demands a 600 W supply. The Quadro is substantially more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?

A: The Quadro K5200 packs 2,304 shading units and 192 texture mapping units, far exceeding the FirePro D500's 1,536 shading units and 96 TMUs. This directly contributes to the Quadro's higher compute and texture throughput.

Q: How do their API support levels compare?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K5200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the FirePro D500 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a marginal version difference.

---

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is built on the GK110B chip using the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 7,080 million transistors across a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but packs only 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, for a density of 12.3 million per mm². The Quadro's larger die and higher transistor count reflect a more complex compute design.

Clock behavior diverges significantly. The Quadro K5200 has a base clock of 667 MHz and a boost clock of 771 MHz, while the FirePro D500's base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro runs at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), whereas the FirePro operates at 1,270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The FirePro compensates with a 384-bit memory bus versus the Quadro's 256-bit bus, giving it higher peak bandwidth (243.8 GB/s vs. 192.3 GB/s).

Core counts heavily favor NVIDIA. The Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The FirePro D500 has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These differences translate into raw throughput: the Quadro delivers 3.553 TFLOPS FP32, 148.0 GTexel/s, and 37.01 GPixel/s, versus the FirePro's 2.227 TFLOPS, 69.60 GTexel/s, and 23.20 GPixel/s. Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores.

Power and physical design also diverge. The Quadro K5200 is a dual-slot card with a 150 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector, measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The FirePro D500 is also dual-slot but draws 274 W, has no listed power connector, and is longer at 279 mm with unspecified height. The Quadro's display outputs include 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2; the FirePro offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI.

---

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 3.553 TFLOPS is roughly 60% higher than the FirePro D500's 2.227 TFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, and general-purpose compute tasks. The Quadro also dominates texture and pixel processing: 148.0 GTexel/s versus 69.60 GTexel/s, and 37.01 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s, respectively. For applications that stress shading units and texture fill, such as 3D modeling and CAD visualization, the Quadro's 2,304 shaders and 192 TMUs provide a clear edge.

The Quadro also wins on memory capacity and efficiency. Its 8 GB frame buffer is nearly triple the FirePro's 3 GB, enabling larger textures, bigger scenes, and more data residency on the GPU. The Quadro's 150 W TDP is 124 W lower than the FirePro's 274 W, making it far easier to cool and integrate into dense workstations. Its lower power draw also suggests more headroom for sustained boost clocks in thermally constrained chassis.

The AMD FirePro D500's niche advantage lies in memory bandwidth. Its 384-bit bus delivers 243.8 GB/s, which is 26.8% higher than the Quadro's 192.3 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound — such as certain image processing, video effects, or large data streaming — the FirePro could hold an edge. Additionally, the FirePro offers six mini-DisplayPort outputs plus an SDI connector, which may appeal to multi-display setups or broadcast environments requiring SDI output. The FirePro also has a longer card length (279 mm) and no specified power connector, so installation requirements differ.

---

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | AMD FirePro D500 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK110B | Tahiti |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 667 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps) | 1,270 MHz (5.1 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 243.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2,304 | 1,536 |

| TMUs | 192 | 96 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.01 GPixel/s | 23.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 148.0 GTexel/s | 69.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.553 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 274 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height | 279 mm length, height not specified |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2014-01-17 |

The two cards differ on every major specification except process node (both 28 nm), foundry (both TSMC), memory type (both GDDR5), bus interface (both PCIe 3.0 x16), DirectX and OpenGL support, slot width (both dual-slot), and production status (both end-of-life).

---

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the data is Geekbench Vulkan, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins it outright. The Quadro scores 20,180, while the AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533 — a delta of 8.9% in NVIDIA's favor. This is a meaningful gap, not a marginal one. In percentile terms, the Quadro sits at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 19,602, while the FirePro sits at the 62nd percentile with an average of 18,533.

Context from nearest rivals strengthens the Quadro's position. The Quadro's average score of 19,602 is just 0.2% below the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765), yet it edges out the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410) by 1% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19,334) by 1.4%. The FirePro D500's average of 18,533 sits 0.5% below the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685), while beating the Intel Arc A770M (18,383) by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373) by 0.9%.

Notably, the Quadro K5200's nearest rivals include high-end gaming GPUs like the RX 7900 XTX, and it holds its own or exceeds them in this benchmark. The FirePro D500, by contrast, is bracketed by far less powerful cards. The 8.9% head-to-head Vulkan delta is consistent with the aggregate score gap of about 5.8% (19,602 vs. 18,533). The Quadro's wins tally stands at 1, the FirePro's at 0.

---

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 outperforms the AMD FirePro D500 across every benchmark recorded, and does so with a significantly lower power draw. The 8.9% Vulkan lead and 5.8% average score advantage are backed by substantial architectural superiority — nearly double the shading units, double the TMUs, 50% more ROPs, and a 59.5% higher FP32 throughput. For any user prioritizing raw compute, texture fill, or pixel output, the Quadro K5200 is the rational choice.

The Quadro's 8 GB memory capacity versus 3 GB on the FirePro further tilts the balance. Larger frame buffers matter for high-resolution textures, complex scenes, and multi-application workflows. The Quadro also demands less from the host system: 150 W TDP and a 450 W suggested PSU versus 274 W and 600 W, respectively. That efficiency translates into easier cooling, quieter operation, and lower system integration costs.

The FirePro D500 does have one defensible strength: memory bandwidth. Its 243.8 GB/s exceeds the Quadro's 192.3 GB/s by 26.8%, which could matter for bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Its six mini-DisplayPort outputs and SDI connector also provide unusual display flexibility, particularly for broadcast or video-wall configurations. However, these advantages do not manifest in the benchmark data — the FirePro loses the sole head-to-head test and has a lower aggregate score.

Users who need maximum compute performance, larger memory capacity, and lower power consumption should choose the NVIDIA Quadro K5200. Users with a specific need for high memory bandwidth or specialized display outputs (notably SDI) might consider the FirePro D500, but they must accept a measurable performance deficit. Given the evidence, the Quadro K5200 is the superior workstation GPU for general compute and rendering workloads.