AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M: two mobile workstation GPUs from different eras, separated by three years of process technology and architectural philosophy. The data reveals a split decision: the AMD card dominates in Metal workloads, while the NVIDIA card strikes back decisively in OpenCL. With an average benchmark score of 10,804 for the Radeon Pro 450 versus 10,043 for the Quadro K5100M, the overall margin is narrow, but the performance profiles could not be more distinct.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the Geekbench Metal test, where the AMD Radeon Pro 450 achieves a score of 12,893 against the Quadro K5100M’s 8,315. That is a 55.1% advantage for the AMD part — a massive gap that speaks to both architectural efficiency and driver maturity under Apple’s Metal API. The Radeon Pro 450’s GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, clearly scales far better in this compute-heavy, low-level graphics API. For any workflow that leans on Metal — common in macOS creative applications — the Radeon Pro 450 is the unambiguous choice.

However, the tables turn completely in Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M posts 11,771, while the Radeon Pro 450 manages only 9,002. That is a 23.5% deficit for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro K5100M is nearly a quarter faster in OpenCL compute tasks. This is a substantial reversal, and it indicates that the Kepler architecture, despite being older and manufactured on a larger 28 nm TSMC node, still has considerable raw compute throughput when the workload is properly parallelized across its 1,536 shading units.

The win tally is exactly even: one benchmark victory apiece. But the magnitude of each win is asymmetric. The Radeon Pro 450’s Metal victory is more than twice as large (55.1%) as the Quadro K5100M’s OpenCL victory (23.5%). This asymmetry matters. In absolute terms, the Radeon Pro 450’s average benchmark score of 10,804 is 7.6% higher than the Quadro K5100M’s 10,043, and the AMD card also sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs compared to the NVIDIA card’s 48th percentile. The data suggests that while the Quadro K5100M can win in a specific API, the Radeon Pro 450 is more consistently competitive across the broader benchmark spectrum.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is wide. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip based on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die is compact at 123 mm², housing 3,000 million transistors for a density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, by contrast, uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. Its die is substantially larger at 294 mm², containing 3,540 million transistors — but the transistor density is only 12.0 million per square millimeter, reflecting the older, less dense manufacturing process.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The Radeon Pro 450 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s — a 42% bandwidth advantage. This is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures, where the NVIDIA card can feed its compute units faster.

Compute resources are also lopsided. The Quadro K5100M packs 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 450 has just 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This explains the OpenCL result: raw shader count matters, and the Kepler chip has more than double the shading units. The NVIDIA card’s texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s for the AMD part, and its pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s. In FP32 compute, the Quadro K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS compared to 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1.024 TFLOPS) for the Radeon Pro 450 — a 2.3x advantage for NVIDIA.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro K5100M runs at a fixed 771 MHz base and boost, with memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The Radeon Pro 450’s core clocks are not specified in the data, but its memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), which partially offsets its narrower bus. Power consumption is starkly different: the Radeon Pro 450 draws 35 W, while the Quadro K5100M draws 100 W. Both are MXM modules, but the NVIDIA card has no power connectors, suggesting it draws power through the MXM slot itself.

API support diverges on DirectX. The Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro K5100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon Pro 450 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the Quadro K5100M has no listed FP16 capability — a notable omission for machine learning inference tasks that rely on half-precision arithmetic.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 450 wins decisively in Metal-based workloads. The 55.1% lead in Geekbench Metal is not marginal; it is a dominant performance differential that will translate directly into faster rendering, compositing, and compute tasks in Metal-optimized applications. Given that the Radeon Pro 450 was released in 2016 as part of the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation, it was designed with modern Apple ecosystem APIs in mind. Its GCN 4.0 architecture also supports newer instruction sets and better wavefront scheduling, which likely contributes to its Vulkan 1.3 support and superior Metal performance.

The Quadro K5100M wins in OpenCL, posting a 23.5% higher score. This is meaningful for cross-platform compute workloads that use OpenCL as the primary interface. The NVIDIA card’s 2.3x FP32 throughput advantage and 42% higher memory bandwidth make it a brute-force compute engine. For tasks that are not tied to a specific graphics API — such as scientific simulation, video encoding, or general-purpose GPU compute — the Quadro K5100M’s raw numbers are compelling.

The memory capacity difference also favors the NVIDIA card in specific use cases. With 8 GB versus 2 GB, the Quadro K5100M can hold far larger working sets in GPU memory without spilling to system RAM. This is critical for rendering scenes with massive texture libraries, training deep learning models with large batch sizes, or processing high-resolution video frames. The Radeon Pro 450’s 2 GB limit will become a bottleneck in these scenarios, regardless of its architectural efficiency.

Power efficiency tells a different story. The Radeon Pro 450 draws 35 W, less than half of the Quadro K5100M’s 100 W. For thermally constrained mobile workstations, this is a decisive factor. The AMD card achieves 10,804 average benchmark points at 35 W, while the NVIDIA card achieves 10,043 at 100 W. Normalized for power, the Radeon Pro 450 is dramatically more efficient — approximately 308 points per watt versus 100 points per watt — a 3x efficiency advantage. This means thinner, quieter, and cooler laptops with longer battery life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform. For macOS users running Metal-accelerated applications — which is the primary environment for the Radeon Pro 450, given its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation label — the AMD card is the superior choice. Its 55.1% Metal benchmark lead and 7.6% higher average score make it the better all-round performer in that ecosystem. Additionally, its 35 W power draw offers significant thermal headroom, and its Vulkan 1.3 support ensures forward compatibility with modern cross-platform APIs.

For users who prioritize OpenCL compute performance, the Quadro K5100M is the winner. Its 23.5% OpenCL advantage, coupled with 8 GB of memory and 2.3x the FP32 throughput, makes it a stronger candidate for heavy compute tasks that are not tied to Metal. The 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is also a practical advantage for memory-bound workloads. However, the 100 W power draw is a serious constraint for mobile use, and the older Kepler architecture lacks FP16 support and modern DirectX 12 (12_0) features.

The choice ultimately hinges on the API and application stack. If the primary software chain uses Metal, the Radeon Pro 450 is the only rational pick. If OpenCL is the dominant interface and memory capacity is paramount, the Quadro K5100M justifies its higher power consumption. The fact that each card wins exactly one head-to-head benchmark, but the AMD card wins by a wider margin and has a higher average score across all benchmarks, tips the overall balance toward the Radeon Pro 450 for general-purpose use. Yet the Quadro K5100M remains a viable specialist tool for compute-heavy OpenCL workflows where its larger memory and higher raw throughput are indispensable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has an average benchmark score of 10,804, which is 7.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M’s 10,043.

Q: How large is the Metal performance gap between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 scores 12,893 in Geekbench Metal, while the Quadro K5100M scores 8,315. This represents a 55.1% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Which GPU is better for OpenCL compute tasks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is better for OpenCL, scoring 11,771 versus the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002, a 23.5% lead for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths of each GPU?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the power draws compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W, while the Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which GPU supports more advanced DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.