AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and AMD Radeon Pro 5700 are both end-of-life workstation products, but they represent very different eras of GPU design. The Quadro K5200 is a Kepler-generation card from 2014, while the Radeon Pro 5700 is an RDNA 1.0 part from 2020. In the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD card wins decisively, but the data reveals a more nuanced story about architectural efficiency and workload suitability. The K5200 holds a 64th-percentile ranking against all GPUs, while the Pro 5700 sits at the 62nd percentile, despite the latter's far higher raw scores in specific tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5700 dominates the two benchmarks that both cards took. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 52,787 against the Quadro's 19,024 — a 64% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 5700 posts 51,289 versus 20,180 for the K5200, a 60.7% lead. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational leap in compute throughput and API efficiency. The Pro 5700 also has a substantial suite of additional benchmark data: a Geekbench Metal score of 60,126, Passmark G3D of 11,583, and Passmark GPU Compute of 4,961. These numbers indicate where the AMD card excels — modern compute workloads, particularly those leveraging Metal or Vulkan.

The Quadro K5200's wins are more subtle. Its average benchmark score of 19,602 is actually higher than the Pro 5700's average of 18,189, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This is because the K5200's two scores (19,024 and 20,180) are tightly clustered, while the Pro 5700's average is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX scores (71 for DirectX 10, 78 for DirectX 11, 48 for DirectX 12, 143 for DirectX 9). The K5200's nearest rival list shows it performing within 1.4% of cards like the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX and GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB, suggesting consistent performance across its tested workloads. The Pro 5700, by contrast, shows extreme variance: it is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 3060 Mobile but 1.1% behind the Intel Arc A770M, yet its OpenCL score is nearly triple that of the K5200.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards explains their divergent results. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The Radeon Pro 5700 uses Navi 10 on TSMC's 7 nm node, with 10,300 million transistors in just 251 mm² — a density of 41.0 million per mm². The newer process allows AMD to fit 45% more transistors into less than half the silicon area.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The K5200 runs at a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, while the Pro 5700 operates at 1,243 MHz base and 1,350 MHz boost. The AMD card's clocks are roughly double, which directly contributes to its compute advantage. The Pro 5700's FP32 throughput is 6.221 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS for the K5200. The AMD card also offers FP16 at 12.44 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which the Kepler part lacks entirely.

Memory subsystems differ significantly. Both have 8 GB and a 256-bit bus, but the K5200 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, yielding 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5700 uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, providing 384.0 GB/s — exactly double. The AMD card also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the K5200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Shader configurations are similar in count (both have 2,304 shading units), but the ROP count differs: 64 on the Pro 5700 versus 48 on the K5200. Texture units favor NVIDIA (192 vs 144), yet the Pro 5700 still achieves higher texture rate (194.4 GTexel/s vs 148.0 GTexel/s) due to its clock advantage. Pixel rate similarly favors AMD: 86.40 GPixel/s vs 37.01 GPixel/s.

The Pro 5700 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no display outputs, drawing 130 W with no power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU. The K5200 is a dual-slot card with 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, rated at 150 W with a 1x 6-pin connector and 450 W suggested PSU. API support also differs: the Pro 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for modern compute workloads: the Radeon Pro 5700. Its 64% lead in OpenCL and 60.7% lead in Vulkan over the Quadro K5200 are decisive. The AMD card's FP16 support, double the memory bandwidth, and more than double the pixel rate make it the superior option for GPU-accelerated tasks that leverage contemporary APIs. The Pro 5700's Metal score of 60,126 further cements its position for Apple ecosystem workflows, given its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation designation.

However, the Quadro K5200 should not be dismissed outright. Its average benchmark score of 19,602 is higher than the Pro 5700's 18,189, driven by the AMD card's very weak Passmark DirectX results (all below 150). For legacy DirectX 9/10/11 workloads, the K5200's consistency — with scores within 1.4% of the RX 7900 XTX and GTX 1060 3 GB — suggests it remains a stable performer. The K5200 also offers physical display outputs, making it usable in a workstation with monitors attached, whereas the Pro 5700 has none.

The verdict hinges on workload. If the task involves OpenCL, Vulkan, Metal, or any modern compute framework, the Radeon Pro 5700 is the only rational choice — its scores are not just higher, they are in a different class. If the task is legacy DirectX or requires a card that can drive displays directly, the Quadro K5200 holds value despite its age. The Pro 5700's 62nd percentile ranking versus the K5200's 64th is misleading; percentiles reflect the full benchmark suite, and the AMD card's poor Passmark DirectX numbers skew its aggregate downward. In the benchmarks that matter for modern acceleration, AMD wins by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700, with 6.221 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.553 TFLOPS for the Quadro K5200. The AMD card also adds 12.44 TFLOPS FP16, which the NVIDIA card lacks.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 provides 384.0 GB/s from 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, exactly double the Quadro K5200's 192.3 GB/s from 8 GB GDDR5 on the same bus width.

Q: Which card supports more modern APIs?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power connector requirement?

A: The Quadro K5200 requires a single 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro 5700 is an IGP with no power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Why does the Quadro K5200 have a higher average benchmark score?

A: The K5200's average is 19,602 versus 18,189 for the Pro 5700. The AMD card's average is pulled down by very low Passmark DirectX scores (71 for DirectX 10, 78 for DirectX 11, 48 for DirectX 12), while its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are far higher.

Q: Which card can output to displays?

A: Only the Quadro K5200, which has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Radeon Pro 5700 has no display outputs, reflecting its IGP design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared tests reveal a complete rout. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5700 scores 52,787 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024. The delta is -64%, meaning the NVIDIA card achieves only about one-third of the AMD card's score. This is the largest gap in the head-to-head data. The Pro 5700's nearest rival list includes the RTX 3060 Mobile (0.2% ahead) and RTX 2060 SUPER (0.5% ahead), placing its OpenCL performance in the range of modern mid-range GPUs. The K5200's nearest rivals include the RX 7900 XTX (1% behind) and GTX 1060 3 GB (1.4% ahead), showing it clusters with older or lower-tier parts.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern, though the margin shrinks slightly. The Pro 5700 scores 51,289 versus 20,180 for the K5200, a -60.7% delta. The AMD card's Vulkan result is within 0.2% of its OpenCL score, indicating strong, consistent API implementation. The K5200's Vulkan score of 20,180 is actually higher than its OpenCL score of 19,024, suggesting the Kepler architecture handles Vulkan slightly better than OpenCL relative to its own baseline, but this is cold comfort given the absolute deficit.

Beyond the shared tests, the Pro 5700 has a rich benchmark profile that reinforces its compute strengths. Its Geekbench Metal score of 60,126 is the highest of any single test for either card, underscoring its design for Apple platforms. Passmark G3D of 11,583 and GPU Compute of 4,961 show solid general 3D and compute performance. However, the Passmark DirectX scores are strikingly low: 143 for DirectX 9, 78 for DirectX 11, 71 for DirectX 10, and 48 for DirectX 12. These numbers suggest the Pro 5700's drivers or hardware are not optimized for older DirectX paths, which explains why its average benchmark score falls below the K5200's despite winning the modern compute tests.

The K5200 has no Passmark data in the fact pack, so its profile rests entirely on the two Geekbench tests. Its tight clustering (19,024 and 20,180) and average of 19,602 indicate a GPU that performs consistently regardless of API. The Pro 5700's average of 18,189 is dragged down by the DirectX outliers, but its modern API scores are 2.5 to 3 times higher than the K5200's best results. For any analyst weighing these two cards, the head-to-head benchmarks tell a simple story: the Radeon Pro 5700 is the superior compute device, while the Quadro K5200 offers consistency and display connectivity at the cost of raw performance.