AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 records an average benchmark score of 10,761, while the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,918. That places the Quadro roughly 20.7% higher on the aggregate metric.

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

A: The Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 28.9% ahead of the Radeon 550X’s 8,866. This is the largest single-test gap between the two.

Q: Does the Radeon 550X win in any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head results show the Quadro K2200 winning both tested workloads: OpenCL and Vulkan. The Radeon 550X trails in each case.

Q: What Vulkan performance does each card deliver?

A: The Quadro K2200 posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,090, while the Radeon 550X scores 8,970. The Quadro’s advantage here is 12.5%.

Q: How do these GPUs rank relative to all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro K2200 sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon 550X sits at the 45th percentile. Both are near the middle of the distribution, but the Quadro edges ahead.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card?

A: For the Quadro K2200, the nearest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 450 with an average score of 10,804, a 0.4% gap. For the Radeon 550X, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 with an average score of 8,863, a 0.6% difference.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K2200 uses NVIDIA’s GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture with a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The chip is based on a generation listed as Quadro Kepler (Kx200), though the architecture itself is Maxwell.

The Radeon 550X takes a different path. It employs AMD’s Lexa chip, part of the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die is smaller at 103 mm² but packs more transistors: 2,200 million, giving a density of 21.4 million per mm². This places the Radeon in the Polaris (RX 500X) generation.

The transistor counts reveal an interesting trade-off. The AMD chip has roughly 17.6% more transistors, but its die is about 30.4% smaller. That translates to significantly higher transistor density, 21.4M versus 12.6M per mm², a 70% advantage. The Quadro compensates with a larger die and a more mature 28 nm process.

Shading resources differ: the Quadro has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. So the Quadro leads in both shader count and texture units, while ROP counts are identical.

Clock speeds go the other way. The Radeon 550X runs at a base of 1,082 MHz and boosts to 1,218 MHz. The Quadro K2200 starts lower at 1,046 MHz and boosts to 1,124 MHz. The Radeon’s higher clocks help close some of the gap in raw compute.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with an effective 5 Gbps signal and 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 550X has only 2 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but runs at 7 Gbps effective, delivering 112.0 GB/s. The Radeon has 39.7% more memory bandwidth despite half the capacity.

Feature support shows a notable split. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, while the Radeon 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0). OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the Quadro lists 1.4, the Radeon 1.3.

Outputs also vary. The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Radeon 550X provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Radeon’s HDMI and newer DisplayPort standard give it more modern connectivity options.

Physical design differs: the Quadro is single-slot with a 202 mm length and 111 mm height, while the Radeon 550X is dual-slot with a shorter 145 mm length. Neither card requires auxiliary power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W power supply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear winner across both tested workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431 against the AMD Radeon 550X’s 8,866. That is a 28.9% advantage for the Quadro, the largest margin in any comparison here. The OpenCL test exercises general compute throughput, where the Quadro’s higher shading unit count and FP32 rating (1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS) likely contribute to the lead.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably. The Quadro K2200 scores 10,090, while the Radeon 550X manages 8,970. The Quadro still wins, but by 12.5% rather than 28.9%. Vulkan workloads often reward memory bandwidth and driver efficiency; the Radeon’s higher bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) may explain why it closes some of the distance here. Still, the Quadro’s absolute score remains higher.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the Quadro’s average benchmark score of 10,761 compares favorably to the Radeon’s 8,918. The delta is about 20.7%. This places the Quadro at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon sits at the 45th percentile. The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, 0.4% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690, 0.7% faster). The Radeon 550X’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, 0.6% faster) and the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, 0.8% faster).

Neither card approaches the top of the charts. But within their own peer groups, the Quadro holds a firm edge. It wins both head-to-head tests, and its percentile ranking is four points higher. The Radeon 550X does not record a single win in the available data.

The biggest takeaway is consistency. The Quadro leads in OpenCL by nearly 29%, and in Vulkan by over 12%. The Radeon 550X, despite having more memory bandwidth and newer architecture features, cannot overcome the Quadro’s raw compute advantages.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification. The Quadro K2200 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon 550X uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are 1,870 million versus 2,200 million, favoring the Radeon. Die size is 148 mm² versus 103 mm², favoring the Quadro’s larger chip. Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm².

Clock speeds: the Quadro runs at 1,046 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost, while the Radeon runs at 1,082 MHz base and 1,218 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 5 Gbps effective versus 7 Gbps effective. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5 on 128-bit buses. Bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

Compute resources: the Quadro has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 17.98 GPixel/s versus 19.49 GPixel/s, favoring the Radeon. Texture rates are 44.96 GTexel/s versus 38.98 GTexel/s, favoring the Quadro. FP32 is 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS.

FP16 is absent on the Quadro, while the Radeon lists 1,247.2 GFLOPS at 1:1 ratio. Power draw is 68 W versus 50 W. Slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display outputs: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Radeon has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Dimensions: 202 mm length and 111 mm height versus 145 mm length only.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 output of 1,438.7 GFLOPS exceeds the Radeon’s 1,247.2 GFLOPS by 15.4%. The texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s outperforms the Radeon’s 38.98 GTexel/s by 15.3%. The Quadro also has more shading units, 640 versus 512, and more TMUs, 40 versus 32. In OpenCL, the benchmark that stresses these resources, the Quadro leads by 28.9%. That makes it the stronger option for general compute tasks, CAD-style workloads, and any application that scales with shader throughput.

The Quadro also wins in Vulkan, though by a smaller margin of 12.5%. Its Vulkan score of 10,090 remains solidly above the Radeon’s 8,970. For users prioritizing a consistent lead across both major API benchmarks, the Quadro delivers.

The AMD Radeon 550X has its own advantages, but they are narrower. It offers 112.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the Quadro’s 80.19 GB/s, a 39.7% advantage. That higher bandwidth can help in certain memory-bound scenarios. Its pixel rate of 19.49 GPixel/s is 8.4% higher than the Quadro’s 17.98 GPixel/s. The Radeon also has a smaller physical footprint at 145 mm length versus 202 mm, and it draws less power at 50 W versus 68 W.

For gaming or lightweight workloads that favor newer feature sets, the Radeon has some appeal. Its DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a higher feature level than the Quadro’s 11_0. It also supports HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro is limited to DisplayPort 1.2. The Radeon’s FP16 capability, 1,247.2 GFLOPS, could benefit applications that use half-precision math, something the Quadro lacks entirely.

However, the benchmark data does not show the Radeon winning anywhere. Both tested workloads favor the Quadro, and the aggregate score is roughly 20.7% higher. The Radeon’s architectural advantages, smaller process node, higher density, more bandwidth, do not translate into a benchmark victory in the recorded results. Its nearest rivals all sit within 1.3% of its average score, meaning it is competitive with its own peer group, but that peer group sits below the Quadro’s.

For users who need maximum compute performance and are willing to accept higher power draw and a larger card, the Quadro K2200 is the stronger pick. For users who value lower power consumption, a shorter card, and modern display outputs, the Radeon 550X offers those features, but with lower benchmark scores across the board.