AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a definitive, one-sided outcome when these two workstation-class graphics cards are placed side by side. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins every round, and it wins by margins that are not close.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M posts a score of 47783. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 manages 19024 in the same test. That puts the AMD part roughly 60% ahead of the NVIDIA part, a gap that speaks to a fundamental difference in compute throughput rather than a minor architectural tuning advantage. The OpenCL test stresses raw parallel math, and the Radeon Pro 5600M simply delivers far more of it.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, follows the same pattern. The Radeon Pro 5600M scores 46425, while the Quadro K5200 scores 20180. The margin here is about 56.5% in favor of the AMD card. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API that rewards efficient command processing and modern hardware design. The Radeon Pro 5600M’s lead in this test indicates that its newer architecture does not just brute-force OpenCL workloads; it also handles the more driver-sensitive, CPU-bound Vulkan path with greater efficiency.

It is importantly the Quadro K5200’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19602, which places it in the 64th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon Pro 5600M, with an average score of 16351, sits in the 59th percentile. This is an interesting inversion: the Quadro has a higher aggregate percentile ranking, yet it loses both direct head-to-head tests decisively. The explanation lies in the benchmark sets. The Radeon Pro 5600M has a much wider battery of recorded tests, including several Passmark workloads where it scores modestly (for example, 62 in Passmark DirectX 10, 59 in DirectX 11, and 118 in DirectX 9). The Quadro K5200 only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which are the ones it loses. So the percentile figures reflect different test portfolios, not a contradiction of the head-to-head outcomes.

The nearest-rival data for each card reinforces the picture. For the Quadro K5200, its closest competitors in the database are the AMD FirePro D300 (average score 19637, about 0.2% above the Quadro), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, about 0.8% above), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, about 1% below), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19334, about 1.4% below). These deltas are all tiny, meaning the Quadro K5200 is essentially a peer of those cards in aggregate performance. For the Radeon Pro 5600M, its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16361, about 0.1% above), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408, about 0.3% above), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16415, about 0.4% above), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16504, about 0.9% above). Again, small deltas, but these are cards from a much later era and a much higher performance tier than the Quadro K5200’s rivals. The Radeon Pro 5600M, despite being a mobile part with a 50 W power envelope, is bracketed by desktop cards like the RX 5700 XT and even the RTX 5090 D V2 in aggregate score. The Quadro K5200 is bracketed by mid-range parts from around its own generation.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies and different manufacturing eras, and the data in the database reflects that clearly.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on the Kepler architecture. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 7,080 million transistors packed into a die of 561 mm². That yields a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The chip is from the Quadro Kepler generation (Kx200 family), and it was released in the summer of 2014. Its base clock is 667 MHz, with a boost clock of 771 MHz. The memory subsystem consists of 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as 1502 MHz, which equates to 6 Gbps effective.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M uses the Navi 12 chip, built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The database does not record a transistor count, die size, or transistor density for this part, but the process node alone tells a story: 7 nm versus 28 nm is a massive generational jump in manufacturing technology. The Radeon Pro 5600M comes from the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation and was released in mid-2020. Its base clock is 822 MHz, with a boost clock of 1144 MHz. The memory is 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as 770 MHz, or 1540 Mbps effective.

The memory bus width difference is stark: 2048-bit for the AMD card versus 256-bit for the NVIDIA card. That is an 8x difference in bus width, and it explains why the Radeon Pro 5600M achieves more than double the memory bandwidth (394.2 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s) despite running its memory at a much lower clock speed. HBM2 is a fundamentally different memory technology than GDDR5, designed for high bandwidth with a very wide interface.

Compute resources also differ. The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The Radeon Pro 5600M has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The AMD card has more shaders and more ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has more TMUs. In terms of fill rates, the Quadro K5200 produces 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s. The Radeon Pro 5600M produces 73.22 GPixel/s and 183.0 GTexel/s. The AMD card is roughly twice as fast in pixel throughput and about 24% faster in texture throughput.

Raw floating-point performance is also lopsided. The Quadro K5200 offers 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Radeon Pro 5600M offers 5.857 TFLOPS of FP32, which is about 65% higher. The AMD card also lists FP16 performance at 11.71 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card lists no FP16 capability at all. Kepler had limited or no true FP16 throughput, so this is a meaningful feature gap for workloads that use half-precision math.

The power envelopes are dramatically different. The Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of only 50 W, is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor, likely for a mobile platform), and requires no power connectors. The AMD card delivers vastly more performance while drawing one-third the power. That is the clearest possible demonstration of the architectural and process-node advantages of RDNA 1.0 on 7 nm versus Kepler on 28 nm.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA card only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The display outputs also differ: the Quadro has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon Pro 5600M lists its outputs as dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

Where Each One Wins

Given the head-to-head data, there is only one clear winner in direct comparison, but the broader benchmark sets allow for a more nuanced split.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins in every scenario where raw compute throughput matters. Its OpenCL score of 47783 versus the Quadro’s 19024 shows a massive advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. Its Vulkan score of 46425 versus the Quadro’s 20180 shows a similar advantage in modern graphics API workloads. The Radeon Pro 5600M also has a much higher FP32 throughput (5.857 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS), double the pixel fill rate (73.22 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s), and more than double the memory bandwidth (394.2 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s). For any workload that is compute-bound, memory-bound, or fill-rate-bound, the Radeon Pro 5600M is the clear choice.

The Radeon Pro 5600M also wins on efficiency. With a TDP of 50 W versus 150 W, it delivers superior performance at one-third the power draw. It requires no power connectors and is an IGP, meaning it can be integrated into a portable device. The Quadro K5200, with its 150 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 6-pin connector, is a traditional desktop or workstation card.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 does have some advantages, but they are not in performance. Its display outputs are fixed and known: 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Radeon Pro 5600M’s outputs are dependent on the host device, which is less predictable. The Quadro K5200 also has a higher aggregate percentile rank (64th versus 59th), but as noted, this is an artifact of different test portfolios rather than a meaningful performance claim.

The Quadro K5200’s nearest rivals in the database are the AMD FirePro D300, AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB, all within about 1.4% of its average score. The Radeon Pro 5600M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, AMD Radeon PRO W7500, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2, also within about 0.9%. This means the Radeon Pro 5600M, despite being a 50 W mobile part, competes with desktop cards that are far above the Quadro K5200’s weight class.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the superior graphics processor in every measured performance category. It wins both shared benchmark tests by margins of roughly 60% and 56.5%. It has higher FP32 compute, higher pixel fill rate, higher texture fill rate, more memory bandwidth, more shading units, more ROPs, and support for newer API versions including DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3. It does all of this with a TDP of 50 W, one-third of the Quadro’s 150 W.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is a product of its time. Released in 2014 on a 28 nm process, it was a capable workstation GPU, but the database shows it is now outclassed by a mobile part from 2020. The Quadro’s only advantages are its predictable display outputs, its higher aggregate percentile ranking (which is misleading due to different benchmark sets), and its larger TMU count (192 versus 160), which does not translate into a win in any recorded test.

Anyone choosing between these two should pick the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M if performance is the priority. It wins every head-to-head test, offers higher compute and memory throughput, and does so at far lower power. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 would only be a sensible choice if the host system requires its specific display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) or if software compatibility with Kepler-era drivers is a hard requirement, but the performance data does not support choosing it on grounds of speed.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins with a score of 47783, which is about 60% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 19024.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M in Vulkan?

A: The Radeon Pro 5600M scores 46425 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro K5200 scores 20180. That is a lead of roughly 56.5% for the AMD card.

Q: Do the two cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has 192.3 GB/s. The AMD card’s HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus provides more than double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do the aggregate benchmark scores compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has an average benchmark score of 19602, putting it in the 64th percentile. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has an average score of 16351, in the 59th percentile. However, the Radeon Pro 5600M has many more recorded benchmarks, including several low-scoring Passmark tests, while the Quadro only has two recorded tests, both of which it loses.