AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 represent two very different eras of professional graphics. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison is not merely about speed. The R9700 is an active, current-generation product built on a 4 nm process, while the K5200 is an end-of-life Kepler architecture card from a much older generation. This review breaks down where each card wins, what the architecture differences mean, and which one should be chosen based strictly on the database results.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark. Out of two head-to-head tests, it wins both. The Geekbench OpenCL score for the R9700 is 118,202, compared to 19,024 for the K5200, a delta of 521.3%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the R9700 scores 63,550 versus 20,180, a delta of 214.9%. These are not close contests; the R9700 dominates in compute-heavy and graphics-API workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 does not win any head-to-head test. Its only recorded strengths are relative to its own generation. The database shows it has a percentile rank of 64 among all GPUs, meaning it sits above the median but far below modern flagships. Its average benchmark score is 19,602. In contrast, the R9700 has a percentile rank of 69 and an average score of 23,315. The K5200’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 (average score 19,637, delta -0.2%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, delta -0.8%), which place it in a mid-range historical context. The R9700’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23,276, delta 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273, delta 0.2%), meaning its average score is essentially tied with those cards despite being a much newer product.

For use cases, the R9700 is built for modern workloads: 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, 4,096 shading units, 64 ray tracing cores, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and PCIe 5.0. The K5200, with 8 GB of GDDR5, 2,304 shading units, and no ray tracing cores, is limited to older APIs like DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. If a workload relies on current-generation features such as ray tracing or high-bandwidth memory, the R9700 is the only viable option. If the workload is legacy compatibility with DVI outputs and older OpenGL 4.6, the K5200 still functions but at a fraction of the performance.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is enormous. The R9700 uses the Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0 million per square millimeter. The K5200 uses the GK110B chip on Kepler, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It has 7,080 million transistors on a larger 561 mm² die, with a density of only 12.6 million per square millimeter. The R9700 packs nearly eight times the transistors into a smaller physical area.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The R9700 has a base clock of 1660 MHz, a boost clock of 2920 MHz, and a game clock of 2350 MHz. Its memory runs at 2518 MHz with 20.1 Gbps effective. The K5200 has a base clock of 667 MHz and a boost of 771 MHz, with memory at 1502 MHz and 6 Gbps effective. The R9700’s boost clock is nearly four times the K5200’s base clock. This translates directly into throughput: the R9700 delivers 47.84 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS. The R9700’s FP16 performance is also 47.84 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the K5200 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory bandwidth is another major divider. The R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s. The K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but only 192.3 GB/s. The R9700 offers more than three times the bandwidth and four times the capacity. Pixel and texture rates follow: the R9700 achieves 373.8 GPixel/s and 747.5 GTexel/s, while the K5200 manages 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s.

Power and connectivity also differ sharply. The R9700 has a TDP of 300 W, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, and suggests a 700 W PSU. The K5200 has a TDP of 150 W, uses a 1x 6-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The R9700 is a dual-slot card with dimensions of 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The K5200 is also dual-slot with the same length and height, but its width is not recorded. The R9700 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the K5200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the R9700 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the K5200 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The R9700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R9700 has 64 ray tracing cores, while the K5200 has none. The R9700’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and it was released on July 22, 2025. The K5200’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi, its successor is the Quadro Maxwell, and it was released on July 21, 2014. The R9700 is listed as active in production, while the K5200 is end-of-life.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 if you need modern performance, high memory capacity, or ray tracing. The data shows it is 521.3% ahead in OpenCL and 214.9% ahead in Vulkan. Its 32 GB memory and 644.6 GB/s bandwidth are essential for large datasets. Its 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 is over 13 times the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS. The R9700 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and PCIe 5.0, making it suitable for current and future software.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 only if you have a legacy requirement. Its 8 GB GDDR5 and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth are enough for older professional apps. Its DVI outputs may be necessary for older displays. However, its 150 W TDP is lower, and its 450 W suggested PSU is easier to accommodate. The K5200’s percentile rank of 64 and average score of 19,602 place it in a mid-range historical position, but its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT with an average score of 19,765, are faster.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the K5200 wins. The R9700 wins all two head-to-head tests. The only reason to pick the K5200 is compatibility with older hardware or software, not performance. The R9700’s active production status and 2025 release date make it a forward-looking choice. The K5200’s end-of-life status and 2014 release date mean it will not receive future optimizations.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory capacity?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The R9700 scores 118,202, which is 521.3% higher than the K5200’s 19,024.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 support ray tracing?

A: No, the K5200 has no ray tracing cores, while the R9700 has 64.

Q: What is the process node for each card?

A: The R9700 uses a 4 nm process, and the K5200 uses a 28 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The R9700 has a boost clock of 2920 MHz, compared to the K5200’s 771 MHz.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The R9700 has an average of 23,315, and the K5200 has an average of 19,602.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two head-to-head tests in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The R9700 wins both by large margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9700 scores 118,202 against the K5200’s 19,024. This is a delta of 521.3%. The R9700’s score is over six times higher. This test measures compute performance across many workloads, and the R9700’s 4,096 shading units and 47.84 TFLOPS FP32 explain the result. The K5200’s 2,304 shading units and 3.553 TFLOPS are a generation behind.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the R9700 scores 63,550 against the K5200’s 20,180. This is a delta of 214.9%. The R9700’s Vulkan 1.4 support and modern architecture give it a strong advantage. The K5200’s Vulkan 1.2.175 support is older, and its Kepler architecture lacks the features needed for efficient Vulkan execution.

Outside the head-to-head set, the R9700 has additional benchmark results that the K5200 lacks. The R9700 scores 7,006 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 26,979 in Passmark G3D, and 15,300 in Passmark GPU Compute. It also has Passmark scores for DirectX 9 (363), DirectX 10 (155), DirectX 11 (272), and DirectX 12 (83), plus a Passmark G2D score of 1,236. The K5200 has no recorded results for these tests. This absence means the K5200 cannot be compared on those metrics, but the available data still shows a clear overall pattern.

The R9700’s average benchmark score of 23,315 is 15.3% higher than the K5200’s 19,602. However, the R9700’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M290X with an average score of 23,276 and a delta of 0.2%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M with 23,273 and a delta of 0.2%. This suggests the R9700’s average score is not exceptional among modern mid-range cards, despite its high peak performance. The K5200’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 with 19,637 and a delta of -0.2%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT with 19,765 and a delta of -0.8%, which shows it is competitive with mid-range cards from its era.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in every major specification, reflecting their different generations.

• Chip and architecture: The R9700 uses Navi 48 on RDNA 4.0, while the K5200 uses GK110B on Kepler.
• Process node: The R9700 is 4 nm, the K5200 is 28 nm.
• Transistors: The R9700 has 53,900 million, the K5200 has 7,080 million.
• Die size: The R9700 is 357 mm², the K5200 is 561 mm².
• Transistor density: The R9700 has 151.0M per mm², the K5200 has 12.6M per mm².
• Base clock: The R9700 is 1660 MHz, the K5200 is 667 MHz.
• Boost clock: The R9700 is 2920 MHz, the K5200 is 771 MHz.
• Game clock: The R9700 is 2350 MHz, the K5200 has none recorded.
• Memory clock: The R9700 is 2518 MHz with 20.1 Gbps effective, the K5200 is 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.
• Memory size: The R9700 has 32 GB, the K5200 has 8 GB.
• Memory type: The R9700 uses GDDR6, the K5200 uses GDDR5.
• Memory bandwidth: The R9700 has 644.6 GB/s, the K5200 has 192.3 GB/s.
• Shading units: The R9700 has 4,096, the K5200 has 2,304.
• Texture mapping units: The R9700 has 256, the K5200 has 192.
• Render output units: The R9700 has 128, the K5200 has 48.
• Ray tracing cores: The R9700 has 64, the K5200 has none.
• Pixel rate: The R9700 is 373.8 GPixel/s, the K5200 is 37.01 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: The R9700 is 747.5 GTexel/s, the K5200 is 148.0 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: The R9700 is 47.84 TFLOPS, the K5200 is 3.553 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: The R9700 is 47.84 TFLOPS (1:1), the K5200 has none recorded.
• TDP: The R9700 is 300 W, the K5200 is 150 W.
• Power connectors: The R9700 uses 1x 16-pin, the K5200 uses 1x 6-pin.
• Suggested PSU: The R9700 is 700 W, the K5200 is 450 W.
• Bus interface: The R9700 is PCIe 5.0 x16, the K5200 is PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display outputs: The R9700 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, the K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX support: The R9700 supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), the K5200 supports 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan support: The R9700 supports 1.4, the K5200 supports 1.2.175.
• Production status: The R9700 is active, the K5200 is end-of-life.
• Release date: The R9700 was released on July 22, 2025, the K5200 on July 21, 2014.
• Predecessor: The R9700’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, the K5200’s is the Quadro Fermi.
• Successor: The R9700 has none recorded, the K5200’s is the Quadro Maxwell.
• Launch MSRP: The R9700 has a launch MSRP of 1,299 USD, the K5200 has none recorded.

The R9700 also has a 40 mm width, while the K5200’s width is not recorded. Both cards are dual-slot and share the same length (267 mm) and height (111 mm). These physical similarities are where the comparison ends; everything else favors the R9700.