AMD Radeon 780M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a split decision. In OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 holds a narrow 2.3% advantage over the AMD Radeon 780M, scoring 19024 versus 18602. However, in Vulkan graphics workloads, the AMD Radeon 780M is decisively ahead, posting a 33683 score against the Quadro’s 20180, a 40.1% gap. The average benchmark scores reflect this tension: the Quadro K5200 averages 19602 across its two recorded tests, placing it at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 780M averages 17588, sitting at the 61st percentile. Neither card dominates outright, but the data implies clear use-case separation. Users prioritizing raw graphics API performance should choose the Radeon 780M; users locked into legacy OpenCL pipelines may find the Quadro K5200’s edge, however slim, more relevant. The Quadro K5200 is end-of-life and was released in July 2014; the Radeon 780M is active and arrived in January 2024.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 780M wins in Vulkan, which is the modern cross-platform graphics API. Its 33683 score in geekbench_vulkan dwarfs the Quadro K5200’s 20180, a 40.1% difference. This is not a marginal victory; the Radeon 780M is in a different performance class for this workload. The data suggests that for gaming, real-time rendering, or any Vulkan-based application, the Radeon 780M is the clear pick. The Quadro K5200’s Vulkan support is limited to version 1.2.175, while the Radeon 780M supports Vulkan 1.4, which likely contributes to the gap.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins in OpenCL, scoring 19024 versus 18602, a 2.3% margin. This is a much tighter result. OpenCL is often used in professional compute contexts, scientific simulations, and certain rendering pipelines. The Quadro K5200’s advantage here, while small, is consistent with its workstation heritage. It also supports OpenGL 4.6, same as the Radeon 780M, but its DirectX support stops at 12 (11_1), whereas the Radeon 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). In practical terms, the Quadro K5200 wins where legacy compute matters; the Radeon 780M wins where modern graphics features and API versions matter.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD Radeon 780M uses the Phoenix chip, built on RDNA 3.0, manufactured on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, achieving a density of 142.6 million per mm². The Radeon 780M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), part of the Navi III IGP generation, while the Quadro K5200 is a discrete dual-slot card from the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation.

The shading hardware differs significantly. The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon 780M has only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Yet the Radeon 780M achieves higher FP32 throughput: 8.909 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS. The Radeon also has 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro. The Radeon 780M supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (8.909 TFLOPS), while the Quadro K5200 has no recorded FP16 capability. Clock speeds tell part of the story: the Quadro runs at a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, while the Radeon runs at 800 MHz base and 2900 MHz boost. The Radeon’s higher clocks, combined with a more modern architecture, explain its FP32 advantage despite fewer shading units.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 780M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. This means the Radeon’s memory performance varies with the host system, while the Quadro has fixed, dedicated bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Radeon’s memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it relies entirely on the platform’s memory subsystem.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200, with an average of 19602 across its two recorded tests, versus the AMD Radeon 780M’s average of 17588.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 780M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The Radeon 780M has a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm², while the Quadro K5200 has 12.6 million per mm².

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M, at 92.80 GPixel/s, versus the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 37.01 GPixel/s.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The Radeon 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2); the Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Are both GPUs manufactured by TSMC?

A: Yes, both use TSMC as their foundry, but on different process nodes: 28 nm for the Quadro and 4 nm for the Radeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests show opposite winners. In geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 19024, edging out the AMD Radeon 780M’s 18602 by 2.3%. This is a modest but real advantage. For workloads that rely on OpenCL, the Quadro K5200 holds a measurable lead, even though both GPUs are within the same performance neighborhood. The Radeon 780M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17551, 0.2% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17639, 0.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17666, 0.4% higher). The Quadro K5200’s rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 (19637, 0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, 0.8% lower), and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, 1.0% higher). Both GPUs sit within about 1% of their closest competitors, indicating they are both in tightly contested performance tiers.

In geekbench_vulkan, the AMD Radeon 780M scores 33683, obliterating the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 20180. The delta is 40.1% in favor of the Radeon. This is the largest margin in either direction across the entire comparison. The Radeon 780M’s Vulkan performance is so far ahead that it changes the overall assessment. Even though the Quadro K5200 wins the OpenCL test, the Vulkan result is not close. The Radeon’s nearest rival in average score, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060, is only 0.3% higher on average, yet the Radeon’s Vulkan score suggests it is far more capable in that specific API than the Quadro. The Quadro K5200’s Vulkan score of 20180 is below its own OpenCL score, while the Radeon’s Vulkan score is nearly double its OpenCL score. This asymmetry points to architectural strengths: the RDNA 3.0 design is built for modern graphics APIs, while the Kepler design predates them.

The wins are split exactly evenly: 1 win each. But the magnitude of the Vulkan win outweighs the OpenCL win in practical terms. A 40.1% advantage is far more significant than a 2.3% one. The data suggests that for any Vulkan-based application, the Radeon 780M is not just faster, it is in a different league. For OpenCL, the Quadro K5200 is only slightly better, and that gap could easily be erased by driver updates or workload variations.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The process node is 28 nm for the Quadro K5200 versus 4 nm for the Radeon 780M. Transistor counts are 7,080 million versus 25,390 million. Die size is 561 mm² versus 178 mm². Base clocks are 667 MHz versus 800 MHz; boost clocks are 771 MHz versus 2900 MHz. The Quadro has 2304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs; the Radeon has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon adds 12 ray tracing cores; the Quadro has none. FP32 compute is 3.553 TFLOPS versus 8.909 TFLOPS. The Radeon also has FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS, while the Quadro has no FP16 listing.

Memory is another major divergence. The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and bus width. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective); the Radeon’s is system shared. Power consumption differs enormously: the Quadro is rated at 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU with a 1x 6-pin connector. The Radeon is rated at 15 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The Quadro is a dual-slot card at 267 mm length and 111 mm height; the Radeon is an IGP with no dimensions listed. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, while the Radeon’s outputs are motherboard dependent.

API support also splits. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status differs: the Quadro is end-of-life, the Radeon is active. Release dates are July 2014 for the Quadro and January 2024 for the Radeon. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell; the Radeon’s predecessor is Navi II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP. Neither GPU has a recorded launch MSRP.