AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a higher average benchmark score of 10,043, compared to the AMD Radeon 550X’s 8,918. That places the Quadro at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon sits at the 45th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K5100M in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K5100M scored 11,771 against the Radeon 550X’s 8,866, a 32.8% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the AMD Radeon 550X has 2 GB of GDDR5. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit.

Q: Do both GPUs support Vulkan?

A: Yes, but with different versions. The Quadro K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon 550X supports the newer Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which GPU is built on a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon 550X has a TDP of 50 W, while the Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W. The Radeon also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro lists none.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundry processes, and those differences show up across nearly every measured parameter.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is based on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, which yields a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Radeon 550X, by contrast, uses the Lexa chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a much smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 21.4 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon 550X has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 3x difference in shader count and a 4x difference in TMUs, though the Radeon compensates partially with significantly higher clock speeds.

Clock behavior is another notable contrast. The Quadro runs at a fixed 771 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The Radeon operates at 1082 MHz base and 1218 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Radeon’s boost clock is about 58% higher than the Quadro’s fixed clock, which helps close the gap created by fewer cores.

Memory configurations also diverge. The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.0 GB/s. Despite having a quarter of the memory capacity and half the bus width, the Radeon’s higher memory clock keeps bandwidth nearly identical.

API support differs in two areas. The Quadro lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon lists DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon is the only one of the two with explicit FP16 support listed, rated at 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro does not list FP16 performance at all.

Physical and interface differences are also present. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon is a Dual-slot card using PCIe 3.0 x8. The Radeon has a listed length of 145 mm (5.7 inches). Display outputs are portable-device dependent on the Quadro, while the Radeon has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scored 11,771, while the AMD Radeon 550X scored 8,866. That is a 32.8% lead for the Quadro, and it represents the only recorded head-to-head win in the matchup.

To put that score in context, the Quadro’s average benchmark score of 10,043 places it near the AMD Radeon R9 M375, which averages 10,070, a difference of only 0.3%. It is also close to the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013, 0.3% behind the Quadro), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846, 2% behind). The Quadro’s 32.8% OpenCL win over the Radeon 550X is therefore not just a small edge; it is a decisive one.

The AMD Radeon 550X, with an average score of 8,918, sits in a different performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, only 0.6% behind the 550X), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, 0.8% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (9,022, 1.2% ahead of the 550X), and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037, 1.3% ahead). Interestingly, the Radeon 550X is bracketed by two NVIDIA desktop parts from very different eras, which suggests its performance sits in a well-populated mid-range band.

The per-GPU benchmark results also reveal different strengths. The Quadro K5100M has two recorded benchmark scores: 8,315 in Geekbench Metal and 11,771 in Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon 550X has two as well: 8,866 in Geekbench OpenCL and 8,970 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Radeon’s OpenCL score is actually higher than its Vulkan score by 104 points, while the Quadro’s OpenCL score is massively higher than its Metal score, by 3,456 points. The Metal result, however, is not directly comparable to the Radeon, since the Radeon has no Metal benchmark recorded.

The data suggests the Quadro’s lead is driven primarily by its much larger shader count and texture throughput. The Quadro’s texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s against the Radeon’s 38.98 GTexel/s, a 2.5x advantage. Its FP32 throughput is 2.369 TFLOPS against 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1.247 TFLOPS), roughly 90% higher. The Radeon does have a higher pixel rate? No, the data shows the Quadro at 24.67 GPixel/s versus 19.49 GPixel/s for the Radeon, a 26.6% edge for the Quadro.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M. It holds a 32.8% lead in the only direct head-to-head test, has a 12.6% higher average benchmark score (10,043 versus 8,918), and sits at a higher percentile ranking (48th versus 45th). For workloads that stress OpenCL compute, the Quadro is substantially faster.

However, the Radeon 550X is not without its own merits. It consumes half the power (50 W versus 100 W), uses a much smaller and denser chip, and supports newer API versions: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 11_0, and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175. It also has a smaller physical footprint at 145 mm in length and uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x8 interface rather than an MXM module, which matters for system compatibility.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the Quadro K5100M is the choice when maximum OpenCL compute throughput is the priority, especially given its 8 GB memory capacity, which is four times that of the Radeon. The Radeon 550X is the choice when power efficiency, newer API support, and a conventional desktop card form factor matter more than raw performance.

For a mobile workstation context, the Quadro’s MXM module design and portable-device-dependent outputs point toward laptop or embedded use. The Radeon’s dual-slot, PCIe x8 design with fixed display outputs points toward desktop installation. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database, so pricing cannot factor into this comparison.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and the AMD Radeon 550X:

• Chip: GK104 (NVIDIA) versus Lexa (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler versus GCN 4.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) versus Polaris (RX 500X)
• Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 3,540 million versus 2,200 million
• Die size: 294 mm² versus 103 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.0M / mm² versus 21.4M / mm²
• Base clock: 771 MHz versus 1082 MHz
• Boost clock: 771 MHz versus 1218 MHz
• Memory clock: 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 8 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 1536 versus 512
• TMUs: 128 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 24.67 GPixel/s versus 19.49 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 98.69 GTexel/s versus 38.98 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS
• FP16: not listed versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 100 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: none versus 250 W
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: no length listed versus 145 mm (5.7 inches)
• Release date: 2013-07-22 versus 2019-03-26
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M versus Polaris
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M versus Vega

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins in raw compute performance. The head-to-head OpenCL result, 11,771 versus 8,866, is its biggest victory, and the 32.8% delta is the single largest margin in this comparison. It also wins on memory capacity (8 GB versus 2 GB), memory bus width (256-bit versus 128-bit), texture rate (98.69 GTexel/s versus 38.98 GTexel/s), pixel rate (24.67 GPixel/s versus 19.49 GPixel/s), and FP32 throughput (2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS). Any workload that scales with shader count, texture fill, or memory capacity will favor the Quadro.

The Quadro also holds the higher average benchmark score at 10,043 versus 8,918, and the higher percentile ranking at 48 versus 45. Its nearest rivals, such as the Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070 and the Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013, are all within 0.3% to 2% of its average, which suggests it is a stable mid-to-upper-tier performer.

The AMD Radeon 550X wins in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 50 W TDP is half the Quadro’s 100 W, and it achieves this while maintaining nearly identical memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s, a difference of only 3.2 GB/s). The Radeon’s higher clocks, 1218 MHz boost versus 771 MHz, help it compensate for fewer cores, and its 14 nm process yields a much higher transistor density at 21.4M per square millimeter.

The Radeon also wins on API modernity. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, both newer than the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Its FP16 capability, listed at 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1), is entirely absent from the Quadro’s specification. For applications that leverage FP16 compute or require the latest Vulkan features, the Radeon is the better fit.

In terms of system integration, the Radeon wins for desktop users. Its dual-slot design, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, fixed display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a), and 145 mm length make it a straightforward drop-in card. The Quadro’s MXM module form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs restrict it to mobile or specialized platforms.

The release timeline also separates the two. The Quadro launched on 2013-07-22, while the Radeon launched on 2019-03-26, nearly six years later. Both are now listed as end-of-life, and both lack a launch MSRP in the database.