AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M has an average benchmark score of 10013, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 averages 8265. The Radeon Pro 5300M sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Quadro K1200 is at the 43rd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in compute workloads?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29252 versus 8831 for the Quadro K1200, a 231.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 27912 versus 7698, a 262.6% lead.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M delivers 192.0 GB/s using 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 provides 80.19 GB/s with 4 GB of GDDR5 also on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro K1200 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for 12.6 million per square millimeter.

Q: Which GPU supports faster PCIe connectivity?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Radeon Pro also has a faster process node at 7 nm versus 28 nm.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 5300M has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M is built on the Navi 14 chip using the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, made on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process gap is substantial: 7 nm versus 28 nm means the Radeon Pro 5300M fits 6,400 million transistors onto a 158 mm² die, while the Quadro K1200 fits only 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die. The resulting transistor density is 40.5 million per square millimeter for AMD versus 12.6 million for NVIDIA.

The Radeon Pro 5300M belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation, whereas the Quadro K1200 is listed under the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, despite using the Maxwell architecture. The AMD GPU offers 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the Quadro K1200's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 5300M also supports FP16 compute at 6.400 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro K1200 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs in type and speed. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, producing 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K1200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, yielding 80.19 GB/s. Both have a 128-bit memory bus. The Radeon Pro 5300M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. API support also differs: the Radeon Pro 5300M reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K1200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark. It dominates in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 29252 versus 8831, and in Geekbench Vulkan with 27912 versus 7698. The Radeon Pro 5300M also holds a substantial advantage in raw compute throughput, with FP32 performance of 3.200 TFLOPS against the Quadro K1200's 1,057.8 GFLOPS.

The Quadro K1200 does have a unique advantage in power efficiency. Its TDP is 45 W, compared to 85 W for the Radeon Pro 5300M. The Quadro K1200 also comes in a single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Radeon Pro 5300M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The Quadro K1200 has a shorter physical length at 160 mm (6.3 inches) and a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), though the Radeon Pro 5300M has no listed dimensions.

For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 10013 places it 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 in the nearest rivals list, and 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 870M. The Quadro K1200's average of 8265 is 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M360, its closest rival. The Radeon Pro 5300M also has a much higher Passmark G3D score of 5918, while the Quadro K1200 has no recorded Passmark scores.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every key specification. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses a 7 nm process, while the Quadro K1200 uses 28 nm. Transistor count is 6,400 million versus 1,870 million. Die size is 158 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is 40.5M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: the Radeon Pro 5300M has a base clock of 1000 MHz and boost of 1250 MHz, while the Quadro K1200 runs at 954 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Compute resources differ significantly: 1280 shading units versus 512, 80 TMUs versus 32, 32 ROPs versus 16. Pixel rate is 40.00 GPixel/s versus 16.53 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 100.0 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.200 TFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS. FP16 is 6.400 TFLOPS for AMD, with none listed for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specifications also differ: TDP is 85 W versus 45 W. The Quadro K1200 is single-slot, while the Radeon Pro 5300M has no slot width listed. Both use no power connectors. The Quadro K1200 lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the Radeon Pro 5300M has none. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for AMD versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M in both available tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 29252 against the Quadro K1200's 8831, a 231.2% advantage. This means the AMD GPU delivers more than three times the OpenCL compute performance of the NVIDIA card.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The Radeon Pro 5300M scores 27912, while the Quadro K1200 manages only 7698, a 262.6% difference. The Radeon Pro 5300M's Vulkan score is close to its OpenCL result, indicating consistent performance across different compute APIs, while the Quadro K1200 drops from 8831 in OpenCL to 7698 in Vulkan.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this pattern. The Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10013 across all recorded benchmarks, sitting at the 48th percentile. The Quadro K1200 averages 8265, at the 43rd percentile. The Radeon Pro 5300M's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, scores 10043, which is only 0.3% higher. The Quadro K1200's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, scores 8325, which is 0.7% higher.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the Radeon Pro 5300M, it shows particular strength in Geekbench Metal with a score of 33626, the highest of any of its recorded tests. Its Passmark G3D score of 5918 and GPU compute score of 2658 further indicate solid performance. The Quadro K1200 has no recorded Metal, Passmark, or DirectX scores, limiting direct comparisons to the two Geekbench tests.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-oriented workloads. The AMD Radeon Pro 5300M outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 by 231.2% in OpenCL and 262.6% in Vulkan, the only two benchmarks where both GPUs have recorded scores. Its average benchmark score is 21.1% higher, and its percentile ranking is 5 points better.

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M if your work depends on OpenCL or Vulkan compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 3.200 TFLOPS, combined with 192.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, makes it suitable for GPU-accelerated tasks. The 7 nm process and PCIe 4.0 support also indicate a more modern architecture.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 only if power consumption is the primary constraint. Its 45 W TDP is less than the Radeon Pro 5300M's 85 W, and its single-slot design with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs offers fixed workstation connectivity. However, its compute performance is substantially lower, and its 28 nm process with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth places it well behind in every measured workload.

For any user comparing raw performance, the Radeon Pro 5300M wins both head-to-head tests and holds a higher average benchmark score. The Quadro K1200's advantages are limited to form factor and power draw, which may matter in specific deployments but do not offset the performance gap. The recorded data shows no benchmark where the Quadro K1200 beats the Radeon Pro 5300M.