AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and AMD Radeon 550X occupy adjacent percentiles in the overall GPU landscape, with the former at the 46th percentile and the latter at the 45th. Despite this closeness in rank, the head-to-head benchmark data reveals a consistent performance gap that favors the older Quadro card. The average benchmark scores of 9637 for the K5000 and 8918 for the Radeon 550X represent a difference of roughly 8%, which is substantial when considering the architectural and generational divides between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data available for direct comparison includes two compute-oriented tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both instances, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 emerges as the clear winner. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K5000 scores 11418 against the Radeon 550X’s 8866. This translates to a delta of 28.8% in favor of the NVIDIA card. The margin is not trivial; it suggests that the Quadro’s compute capabilities, while rooted in older Kepler architecture, deliver significantly higher raw throughput in this workload.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, albeit with a slightly narrower margin. The K5000 scores 11169, while the Radeon 550X manages 8970. This represents a 24.5% advantage for the Quadro K5000. It is importantly the Radeon 550X does not have a Metal benchmark score listed, whereas the K5000 posts 6324 in Geekbench Metal. This absence limits a full cross-API comparison, but the two shared tests are consistent in their outcome. The K5000 wins both shared benchmarks, giving it a clean 2-0 record in the head-to-head data.

Examining the nearest rival data for each card provides additional context. The Quadro K5000’s average score of 9637 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100. It is also within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000. This clustering indicates that the K5000 performs on par with a range of mid-tier mobile and workstation GPUs from later generations. Conversely, the Radeon 550X’s average score of 8918 puts it 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M265X, while sitting 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition. The Radeon 550X’s rivals are generally older or lower-tier parts, which underscores its position as an entry-level offering.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a clear split in workload favorability. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins decisively in both OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks. For users running applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, the K5000’s 28.8% lead in that specific test is the strongest differentiator. Similarly, for Vulkan-based workloads, whether in modern game engines or compute shaders, the 24.5% advantage points to the K5000 as the more capable option. The K5000 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 6324, a test which the Radeon 550X has no data for, suggesting that the NVIDIA card is the only one of the two with verified performance in Apple’s Metal API.

The AMD Radeon 550X does not win any of the shared benchmarks. Its strengths, therefore, do not appear in the compute-focused scores provided. Instead, its advantages are found in its physical and power characteristics. The Radeon 550X has a significantly lower thermal design power (TDP) of 50 W compared to the K5000’s 122 W, and it requires no external power connectors, drawing all its power from the PCIe slot. This makes it a more suitable candidate for systems with modest power supplies or limited cooling capacity. The Radeon 550X is also much shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) versus the K5000’s 267 mm (10.5 inches), which could be a deciding factor for small form factor chassis. The data suggests that while the K5000 wins on raw compute, the 550X wins on operational efficiency and physical fit.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon 550X uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It houses 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a higher transistor density of 21.4M per mm². This density difference reflects the newer manufacturing node used for the Radeon.

Core configuration also diverges sharply. The K5000 is equipped with 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The Radeon 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These numbers explain the K5000’s higher theoretical fill rates: 22.59 GPixel/s pixel rate and 90.37 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s for the Radeon. The K5000’s FP32 performance is listed at 2.169 TFLOPS, while the Radeon 550X posts 1,247.2 GFLOPS. Notably, the Radeon 550X also lists FP16 performance at 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1), a capability the K5000 does not specify.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The K5000 uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 550X uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, delivering 112.0 GB/s. The K5000’s memory clock is listed at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the Radeon runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Despite the higher clock speed, the narrower bus of the Radeon limits its total bandwidth. Interface support also differs: the K5000 supports PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon 550X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. API support shows the Radeon with a slightly newer feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the K5000’s DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has an average benchmark score of 9637, while the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8918.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards in a shared test?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 leads the AMD Radeon 550X by 28.8%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 550X win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The data shows the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 winning both shared benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), for a total of 2 wins for the K5000 and 0 for the Radeon 550X.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The AMD Radeon 550X has a TDP of 50 W, requires no external power connectors, and has a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has a memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s, which is higher than the AMD Radeon 550X’s 112.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the physical length differences?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, while the AMD Radeon 550X is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the superior performer in compute tasks. It leads by 28.8% in OpenCL and 24.5% in Vulkan, and it also has a verified Metal score. For any workload where raw compute throughput in these APIs is the primary concern, the K5000 is the clear choice. Its higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and larger memory pool (4 GB vs 2 GB) support its dominant position in the data. The K5000’s average score of 9637 is also closer to its nearest rivals, which include the Quadro P4000, suggesting it still competes with later professional cards.

The AMD Radeon 550X is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the compute benchmarks. With a TDP of only 50 W and no external power connectors, it is far easier to integrate into low-power or compact systems. Its 145 mm length is less than half that of the K5000, making it viable for small form factor builds. The data does not indicate any performance scenario where the 550X beats the K5000, but for users whose primary constraint is power draw or physical space rather than compute speed, the 550X presents a more practical option. Its higher transistor density and newer architecture do not translate into benchmark wins, but they do contribute to its efficiency.

The choice between these two cards is a matter of priorities. If the goal is maximum compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins outright based on the numbers. If the goal is a low-profile, low-power card that still offers a baseline level of compute capability, the AMD Radeon 550X is the data-supported alternative. The K5000’s end-of-life status and higher power draw are trade-offs, but its benchmark dominance is unambiguous.

Specification Differences

The table below summarizes only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5000 | AMD Radeon 550X |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 1082 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1218 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 22.59 GPixel/s | 19.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 90.37 GTexel/s | 38.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.169 TFLOPS | 1,247.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 122 W | 50 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions (Length) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-08-16 | 2019-03-26 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Polaris |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Vega |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | Not specified |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 11418 | 8866 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 11169 | 8970 |