GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200: benchmark and specification comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the margin varies dramatically depending on the test. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8866 against the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's 8831, a difference of just 0.4%. This is effectively a statistical tie, the two cards are nearly indistinguishable in raw compute workloads that stress OpenCL. For context, the Radeon 550X sits 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and 0.8% above the AMD Radeon R9 M265X in average score, while the Quadro K1200 is 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M375X. Neither card dominates its nearest rivals in OpenCL; both are clustered tightly in a performance band where a few percentage points separate many products.

The Vulkan test tells a completely different story. The Radeon 550X scores 8970, while the Quadro K1200 manages only 7698. That is a 16.5% advantage for the AMD card, a massive, decisive gap. This is not a marginal edge; it is a generational leap in API efficiency. The Radeon's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score (8970 vs 8866), suggesting the GCN 4.0 architecture scales well with modern low-level APIs. The Quadro K1200, by contrast, drops from 8831 in OpenCL to 7698 in Vulkan, a 12.8% regression within the same card. This pattern indicates the Maxwell architecture's Vulkan implementation is comparatively weak, likely due to driver maturity or hardware scheduler limitations.

Aggregating both tests, the Radeon 550X achieves an average benchmark score of 8918, which places it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K1200 averages 8265, sitting at the 43rd percentile. The raw delta in average score is 653 points, approximately 7.9% in favor of AMD. The Radeon 550X's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660, scores 9022, just 1.2% above the AMD card, while the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition scores 9037, 1.3% above. On the NVIDIA side, the Quadro K1200's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, scores 8167, which is 1.2% below the Quadro. These rival positions reinforce the interpretation: the Radeon 550X competes in a slightly higher performance tier despite both cards having identical shading unit counts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations and fabrication processes. The AMD Radeon 550X is built on the Lexa chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It belongs to the Polaris (RX 500X) generation and packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation and contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon's process advantage is stark: 14 nm versus 28 nm means considerably more transistors in a smaller physical area, which typically translates to better power efficiency and higher attainable clocks.

Clock speeds reflect this process gap. The Radeon 550X runs at a base clock of 1082 MHz with a boost of 1218 MHz, while the Quadro K1200 is rated at 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. The AMD card holds a 13.4% advantage in base clock and a 17.9% advantage in boost clock. Memory clocks differ similarly: the Radeon's GDDR5 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Quadro's GDDR5 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Despite both using 128-bit memory buses, the Radeon 550X achieves 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s, a 39.7% advantage for AMD.

Shading resources are identical on paper: both cards have 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. However, the clock speed differences produce divergent peak rates. The Radeon 550X delivers 19.49 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 38.98 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Quadro K1200 manages 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Radeon reaches 1,247.2 GFLOPS versus the Quadro's 1,057.8 GFLOPS, an 17.9% advantage. Critically, the Radeon 550X supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,247.2 GFLOPS), while the Quadro K1200 has no FP16 capability listed. This makes the AMD card substantially more flexible for workloads that can leverage reduced precision.

API support also diverges. The Radeon 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a lower feature level, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan version difference (1.3 vs 1.4) is notable, yet the Radeon still dominates the Vulkan benchmark, suggesting hardware efficiency matters more than API revision. The Quadro's DirectX 11_0 feature level is a significant limitation for modern gaming or DirectX 12 workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 550X wins in both benchmark tests, but the nature of those wins suggests distinct application domains. In OpenCL, the 0.4% edge is negligible, any OpenCL compute task would perform virtually identically on either card. This includes general-purpose GPU compute in applications like video encoding, physics simulation, or scientific number crunching that rely on OpenCL. The Radeon's higher FP32 throughput (1,247.2 vs 1,057.8 GFLOPS) and memory bandwidth (112.0 vs 80.19 GB/s) provide a theoretical foundation, but the benchmark shows real-world OpenCL performance is nearly equal.

The Vulkan test reveals where the Radeon 550X truly separates itself. A 16.5% advantage in Vulkan indicates the AMD card is substantially better suited for modern game engines and applications that use Vulkan for rendering or compute. This is the most important differentiator for anyone considering Vulkan-based workloads, including recent AAA games, Vulkan-enabled emulators, and professional visualization tools that have adopted Vulkan. The Radeon's higher boost clock (1218 vs 1033 MHz) and superior memory bandwidth contribute, but the architectural efficiency of GCN 4.0 in handling Vulkan's explicit multi-threading model is the likely driver.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 does not win any benchmark in this head-to-head comparison. However, its strengths lie outside raw performance metrics. The Quadro K1200 offers 4 GB of memory versus the Radeon's 2 GB, double the capacity. For workloads that exceed 2 GB of VRAM, such as large texture sets or complex 3D scenes, the Quadro will not run out of memory where the Radeon would. The Quadro also supports four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the Radeon's single DVI, single HDMI 2.0b, and single DisplayPort 1.4a. In multi-monitor professional setups, the Quadro's four-output capability is a clear practical advantage. Additionally, the Quadro is a single-slot card (160 mm length, 69 mm height) versus the Radeon's dual-slot design (145 mm length), which matters for dense workstation builds.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X leads in FP32 with 1,247.2 GFLOPS versus the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS, a 17.9% advantage. The Radeon also supports FP16 at 1,247.2 GFLOPS, while the Quadro has no FP16 capability.

Q: How do the cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 versus the Radeon 550X's 2 GB, so the Quadro offers double the capacity. However, the Radeon has higher bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, a 39.7% advantage, due to faster memory clocks (1750 MHz vs 1253 MHz).

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan applications?

A: The Radeon 550X wins the Geekbench Vulkan test by a wide margin: 8970 versus 7698, a 16.5% difference. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: Are the cards similar in OpenCL performance?

A: Yes, they are nearly identical. The Radeon 550X scores 8866 and the Quadro K1200 scores 8831 in Geekbench OpenCL, a difference of just 0.4%.

Q: What are the power and physical requirements?

A: The Radeon 550X has a 50 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP and a 200 W suggested PSU. The Radeon is dual-slot (145 mm long), and the Quadro is single-slot (160 mm long, 69 mm high). Neither card requires power connectors.

Q: Which card has better display output capabilities?

A: The Quadro K1200 supports four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Radeon 550X has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0b, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro supports more simultaneous displays.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The AMD Radeon 550X uses the Lexa chip on GCN 4.0 architecture with a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, containing 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture with a 28 nm process from TSMC, containing 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density is 21.4M/mm² for AMD versus 12.6M/mm² for NVIDIA. Clock speeds: the Radeon runs at 1082 MHz base and 1218 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. Memory: the Radeon has 2 GB GDDR5 at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps) with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro has 4 GB GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps) with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but the Radeon achieves higher rates: 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s and 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,247.2 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS, and FP16 exists only on the Radeon at 1,247.2 GFLOPS. TDP is 50 W versus 45 W, with suggested PSUs of 250 W versus 200 W. The Radeon is dual-slot and 145 mm long, while the Quadro is single-slot and 160 mm long by 69 mm high. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0). Vulkan: 1.3 versus 1.4. Release dates: 2019-03-26 versus 2015-01-27.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon 550X for raw performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a decisive 16.5% advantage in Vulkan and a marginal 0.4% edge in OpenCL. Its higher clock speeds, superior memory bandwidth, and FP16 support make it the better choice for compute-heavy workloads, particularly those leveraging Vulkan or reduced-precision math. The 45th percentile ranking versus 43rd for the Quadro confirms its higher standing in the overall GPU landscape.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 has specific advantages that matter in professional contexts. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the Radeon's 2 GB, which is critical for workloads that exceed the smaller frame buffer. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor setups that the Radeon's three outputs cannot match. The single-slot form factor and lower 45 W TDP make it easier to integrate into dense workstation configurations.

The recommendation depends on workload priorities. For Vulkan-based applications, modern game engines, or compute tasks that can use FP16, the AMD Radeon 550X is the superior choice, its 16.5% Vulkan lead is too large to ignore. For memory-intensive professional visualization, multi-display productivity, or environments where slot space is constrained, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200's 4 GB capacity and single-slot design provide practical benefits that benchmark scores do not capture. Neither card is a clear winner across all criteria; the Radeon wins on speed, and the Quadro wins on capacity and connectivity.