AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 represent two very different eras of professional mobile graphics, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm rather than a close contest. The Radeon Pro 5500M, built on 7nm RDNA 1.0, utterly dominates the older 28nm Maxwell-based Quadro in every measurable category where they overlap. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the AMD card wins decisively, with the data showing a 172% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a staggering 248.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro K2200, despite its professional pedigree, cannot close the gap created by nearly a decade of architectural evolution and a vastly superior memory subsystem.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking disparity appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 35,134 against the Quadro K2200's 10,090. That 248.2% delta is not a marginal improvement; it represents a fundamental leap in compute throughput and API efficiency. Vulkan workloads, which scale with shader count and memory bandwidth, expose the Quadro's limitations immediately. The Radeon Pro 5500M's 1,536 shading units and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth simply overwhelm the Quadro's 640 shading units and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The result is a score that is more than triple the rival's, indicating that modern rendering pipelines will favor the AMD card by an enormous margin.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the margin narrows but remains lopsided. The Radeon Pro 5500M posts 31,088 versus the Quadro's 11,431, a 172% advantage. OpenCL is often more forgiving of older architectures than Vulkan, yet the data still shows the AMD card delivering nearly three times the raw compute. The Quadro's 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32 peak pales against the Radeon's 4.454 TFLOPS. For any professional application that leverages OpenCL for simulation, rendering, or data processing, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the clear choice based on these numbers alone.

Interestingly, the Quadro K2200 has no corresponding Geekbench Metal score in the data, likely due to its age and lack of macOS driver optimization. The Radeon Pro 5500M, however, achieves 38,235 in Geekbench Metal, which is even higher than its Vulkan score. This suggests the AMD card is particularly well-suited for Apple-centric workflows that rely on Metal, a domain where the Quadro simply cannot compete. The wins tally reflects this: AMD takes 2 wins, NVIDIA takes 0 in their direct head-to-head.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast and explains the benchmark chasm. The Radeon Pro 5500M is fabricated on TSMC's 7nm process, packing 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², a figure that is 3.2 times higher than the Quadro's 12.6M per mm². The Quadro, using a 28nm process, crams 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, which is nearly the same physical size but with far fewer resources. This density advantage allows AMD to fit 2.4 times more shading units (1,536 vs 640) and 2.4 times more texture mapping units (96 vs 40) into a similar footprint.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K2200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but only manages 80.19 GB/s due to its slower 5 Gbps effective memory clock versus the AMD's 12 Gbps. That 2.4x bandwidth advantage is crucial for large textures, high-resolution compute buffers, and multi-tasking. The Radeon also doubles the ROP count (32 vs 16), which directly impacts pixel fill rate: 46.40 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s.

Feature support differs as well. The Radeon Pro 5500M supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Even accounting for the older lane standard, PCIe 4.0 x8 offers significantly more host-device bandwidth, reducing data transfer bottlenecks. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the Radeon achieves DirectX 12_1 while the Quadro only reaches 12 (11_0). The Radeon also offers FP16 compute at 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), whereas the Quadro has no FP16 support listed at all. This makes the AMD card far more capable for machine learning inference and half-precision workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior GPU in every shared benchmark. Its 248.2% Vulkan lead and 172% OpenCL lead are not edge cases but consistent, overwhelming advantages. The Quadro K2200's only saving grace is its 68W TDP, which is lower than the Radeon's 85W, but that efficiency gain does nothing to offset the massive performance deficit. The Radeon also offers double the VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB), which is critical for modern professional workloads like high-res texture baking or large dataset processing. The Quadro's average benchmark score of 10,761 places it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon's 11,528 average lands in the 51st percentile — a narrow aggregate gap, but the head-to-head tests show the real disparity lies in modern API performance.

For anyone choosing between these two today, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the only rational pick based on performance. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (avg score 11,680, deltaPct -1.3%) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (avg score 11,627, deltaPct -0.8%), placing it in solid mid-range territory. The Quadro, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (avg score 10,629, deltaPct 1.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (avg score 10,883, deltaPct -1.1%), indicating it is competitive with entry-level mobile parts from several generations later. The verdict is clear: the Radeon Pro 5500M is a modern, capable professional GPU, while the Quadro K2200 is a legacy part that has been surpassed by even budget-class hardware.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench Vulkan score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 35,134 versus the NVIDIA Quadro K2200's 10,090, a 248.2% advantage for AMD.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M offers 192.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6, while the Quadro K2200 provides 80.19 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5, a 2.4x gap.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units compared to the Quadro K2200's 640, a 2.4x difference in raw shader count.

Q: Does the Quadro K2200 support FP16 compute?

A: No, the data lists no FP16 support for the Quadro, whereas the Radeon Pro 5500M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Q: How does the Radeon Pro 5500M fare against its nearest rivals?

A: It sits between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (avg 11,680, -1.3% delta) and the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (avg 11,479, 0.4% delta), indicating mid-range positioning.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M's Navi 14 has 40.5M transistors per mm², while the Quadro's GM107 has 12.6M per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins in every benchmark where both have data. Its 172% OpenCL lead and 248.2% Vulkan lead make it the default choice for any modern compute workload. It also wins in memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB), bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), pixel rate (46.40 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s), and texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s). For professionals using Metal, the Radeon's 38,235 Geekbench Metal score is a major advantage, though the Quadro has no comparable score. The Radeon's FP16 capability also makes it the pick for AI inference and half-precision shaders.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but it does hold advantages in specific non-performance areas. Its 68W TDP is lower than the Radeon's 85W, making it easier to cool in tight chassis. It is a single-slot card with a 202 mm length and 111 mm height, which may fit in legacy systems where the Radeon's "portable device dependent" form factor is uncertain. The Quadro also uses a standard PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, which is more universally compatible with older motherboards than the Radeon's PCIe 4.0 x8. For pure compute and rendering, the Radeon dominates; for legacy system integration and low-power deployments, the Quadro retains a niche.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every specification. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses a 7nm process with 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the Quadro K2200 uses a 28nm process with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Clock speeds differ: the Radeon has a 1000 MHz base and 1450 MHz boost, while the Quadro has a 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory is 8 GB GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective for AMD versus 4 GB GDDR5 at 5 Gbps for NVIDIA. The Radeon's FP32 is 4.454 TFLOPS versus the Quadro's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. The Radeon has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the Quadro has 640, 40, and 16, respectively. TDP is 85W for AMD and 68W for NVIDIA. The Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8, the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are "portable device dependent" for the Radeon, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro has a 250W suggested PSU, while the Radeon lists none. Finally, the Radeon supports DirectX 12_1 and FP16, while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no FP16 support.