AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior mobile workstation GPU when compared directly to the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M. In the only two tests where both products have recorded scores, the Radeon Pro 5500M wins both, with the largest margin being a 359.8% advantage in Geekbench Metal. The Radeon Pro 5500M also sits in the 51st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K5100M sits in the 48th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Radeon Pro 5500M is 11528, compared to 10043 for the Quadro K5100M, a difference of roughly 14.8% in favor of the AMD part.

For users prioritizing modern compute workloads, particularly those leveraging Apple's Metal API or OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the clear choice. Its architecture is significantly newer, its process node is far more advanced, and its memory bandwidth is substantially higher. The Quadro K5100M, while an older product, still holds relevance for legacy applications where its Kepler architecture and specific driver optimizations might be a factor, but the raw performance data does not support choosing it over the 5500M in any measured category.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M has an average benchmark score of 11528, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's average of 10043. This places the 5500M in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K5100M is in the 48th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Metal?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M scores 38235 in Geekbench Metal, while the Quadro K5100M scores 8315. This results in a delta of 359.8%, meaning the AMD GPU is roughly 3.6 times faster in this specific test.

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

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has a memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, while the Quadro K5100M has a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The AMD card offers 76.8 GB/s more bandwidth, a significant advantage for memory-intensive tasks.

Q: Which GPU has a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M is built on a 7 nm process node, whereas the Quadro K5100M uses a 28 nm process node. The smaller node allows the 5500M to pack 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, compared to the K5100M's 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Quadro K5100M wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmark data, the Quadro K5100M does not win any tests. The Radeon Pro 5500M wins both recorded benchmarks (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL), giving it a 2-0 win count.

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

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has a transistor density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro K5100M has a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. This reflects the much more compact design enabled by the newer process node.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is based on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, utilizing the Navi 14 chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is built on the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. This generational gap is reflected in the manufacturing process: the 5500M uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the K5100M uses a 28 nm process also from TSMC.

The transistor counts tell a compelling story. The Radeon Pro 5500M integrates 6,400 million transistors on a die size of 158 mm², resulting in a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro K5100M, by contrast, has 3,540 million transistors on a much larger 294 mm² die, yielding a density of just 12.0 million per square millimeter. The 5500M's design is not only more efficient in space but also in power, with a TDP of 85 W compared to the K5100M's 100 W.

Both GPUs have the same number of shading units (1536) and ROPs (32), but the Radeon Pro 5500M has 96 TMUs while the Quadro K5100M has 128 TMUs. The AMD card compensates with substantially higher clock speeds: a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1450 MHz, versus the NVIDIA card's base and boost of 771 MHz. The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally: the 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the Radeon's faster memory (12 Gbps effective versus 3.6 Gbps effective) gives it the bandwidth advantage.

In terms of API support, the Radeon Pro 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card also has a clear advantage in FP16 performance, offering 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), whereas the NVIDIA card has no recorded FP16 capability.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several key differentiators. The Radeon Pro 5500M has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1450 MHz, while the Quadro K5100M is locked at 771 MHz for both. Memory speeds differ dramatically: the 5500M runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the K5100M runs at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a point of divergence. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses a 128-bit bus with GDDR6 memory, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K5100M uses a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, delivering 115.2 GB/s. Both have 8 GB of memory, but the type and bus width yield different performance characteristics.

Compute rates are significantly different. The Radeon Pro 5500M achieves a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s, compared to the Quadro K5100M's 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.454 TFLOPS for the AMD card versus 2.369 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. The Radeon Pro 5500M also supports FP16 at 8.909 TFLOPS, a feature absent from the Quadro K5100M's specifications.

Physical and interface differences are notable. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Quadro K5100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface. The NVIDIA card is an MXM Module form factor, while the AMD card's slot width is not specified. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Radeon Pro 5500M was released on November 12, 2019, while the Quadro K5100M was released earlier on July 22, 2013. The NVIDIA card has a predecessor (Quadro Fermi-M) and successor (Quadro Maxwell-M), while the AMD card has neither recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M dominates both. The most dramatic result is in Geekbench Metal, where the 5500M scores 38235 against the K5100M's 8315. This translates to a delta of 359.8%, meaning the AMD card is nearly four times faster in this Apple-centric compute API. For users working in macOS environments with Metal-accelerated applications, this is a decisive advantage.

The second test, Geekbench OpenCL, also goes to the Radeon Pro 5500M, which scores 31088 versus 11771 for the Quadro K5100M. The delta here is 164.1%, indicating the AMD card is more than 1.6 times faster in OpenCL workloads. This reinforces the pattern of the newer architecture delivering substantially higher compute throughput.

These two wins give the Radeon Pro 5500M a 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score difference, 11528 versus 10043, reflects a 14.8% overall advantage for the AMD part, though the head-to-head deltas are far larger than the average suggests. This is because the average includes all recorded benchmarks, not just the shared ones, and the Quadro K5100M has fewer recorded tests.

The nearest rival data contextualizes these results. The Radeon Pro 5500M's closest competitors include the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (1.3% behind). The Quadro K5100M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (0.8% behind). These figures show both GPUs are positioned in the mid-range of the database, but the 5500M sits slightly higher.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its 359.8% lead in Geekbench Metal makes it the definitive choice for Metal-based applications, which are common in macOS creative workflows, 3D rendering, and machine learning tasks that leverage Apple's frameworks. The 164.1% advantage in OpenCL extends this dominance to cross-platform compute workloads, including video encoding, physics simulations, and general-purpose GPU computing.

The Radeon Pro 5500M also wins on architectural merits that translate to real-world performance. Its 7 nm process node and RDNA 1.0 architecture deliver higher clock speeds (1450 MHz boost versus 771 MHz), higher pixel and texture rates (46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s versus 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s), and double the FP32 throughput (4.454 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS). The memory bandwidth advantage of 192.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s means the 5500M can feed its compute units more effectively, reducing bottlenecks in data-intensive workloads.

For the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, the wins are more situational. While it does not win any recorded benchmarks, its Kepler architecture and 256-bit memory bus might be preferable in legacy applications that were optimized for NVIDIA's ecosystem of that era. The MXM-B (3.0) interface and 100 W TDP make it a drop-in replacement for older mobile workstations, whereas the Radeon Pro 5500M's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface requires a more modern platform. The Quadro K5100M also has a longer track record, with its predecessor and successor clearly documented, suggesting a mature driver stack for enterprise software certification.

In terms of use-case split, the data points to the Radeon Pro 5500M for any modern compute task, especially those using Metal or OpenCL. The Quadro K5100M's role is limited to maintaining compatibility with older systems or software that specifically requires Kepler-based NVIDIA hardware. The 14.8% average score advantage for the 5500M, combined with its massive head-to-head wins, makes it the recommended choice for nearly all scenarios. The only context where the K5100M might be considered is when hardware compatibility with a specific MXM-based laptop chassis is a hard requirement, and even then, the performance gap is substantial.