AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a narrow split between these two professional GPUs, with each claiming one benchmark victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 posts a score of 19024 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's 18268, a 4% margin in favor of the older NVIDIA part. That result is notable given the architectural gulf between the two, the Quadro K5200 relies on a 28 nm Kepler design while the Radeon Pro Vega 16 uses a newer 14 nm Vega 12 chip.

The reverse happens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 21832 versus 20180 for the Quadro K5200. That 8.2% advantage reflects a substantial lead in API-level performance, likely tied to the Vega 16's modern GCN 5.0 architecture and its Vulkan 1.3 support compared to the Quadro K5200's Vulkan 1.2.175 implementation. The delta here is larger than the OpenCL gap, meaning the AMD part wins by a wider margin in Vulkan than it loses in OpenCL.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 sits at 23250 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 averages 19602. That 3648-point gap in the database's aggregate metric places the AMD part roughly 18.6% higher overall. The percentile data reinforces this: the Radeon Pro Vega 16 ranks in the 68th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K5200 sits in the 64th percentile. Neither part dominates the other outright, but the AMD card holds a consistent edge in the broader score distribution.

The head-to-head results also matter for workload selection. OpenCL remains a common compute language for professional applications, and the Quadro K5200's 4% win there suggests it retains relevance for legacy OpenCL pipelines. Vulkan, by contrast, is increasingly used in real-time rendering and modern game engines, where the Vega 16's 8.2% lead gives it a clear advantage. The data does not show a third benchmark, so no additional head-to-head comparisons exist in the database.

The average score delta between the two parts in their nearest rival comparisons is telling. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's nearest rival, the NVIDIA P106-100, matches it at 23249 with a 0% delta, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600M and AMD Radeon R9 M290X trail by 0.1% each, and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 is 0.3% behind. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200's nearest rival, the AMD FirePro D300, comes within 0.2%, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is 0.8% off and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX sits 1% higher. These tight deltas indicate both GPUs are closely matched to their immediate competitors, but the Vega 16's average score places it in a slightly higher performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins with a score of 19024 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's 18268, a 4% margin.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 wins with a score of 21832 versus 20180 for the NVIDIA Quadro K5200, an 8.2% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 23250 across all tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 averages 19602.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 ranks in the 68th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 ranks in the 64th percentile.

Q: What API versions does each GPU support?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 uses the Vega 12 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture at a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip on Kepler architecture at a 28 nm process from TSMC. This two-generation process gap explains much of the efficiency difference: the Vega 16 has a 75 W TDP, while the Quadro K5200 draws 150 W.

The transistor counts differ sharply. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but its 14 nm node implies a denser design. The Vega 16 uses 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Quadro K5200 fields 2304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Vega 16 achieves a pixel rate of 38.08 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s for the Quadro K5200, a narrow win. The texture rates diverge more: the Quadro K5200 reaches 148.0 GTexel/s against 76.16 GTexel/s for the Vega 16, a 94% advantage for NVIDIA.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Vega 16 uses 4 GB of HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 16's bandwidth is 60% higher, but the Quadro K5200 has double the capacity. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the Vega 16 runs at 815 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5200 runs at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. The Vega 16's higher clocks, combined with its smaller shading unit count, produce 2.437 TFLOPS of FP32 performance against 3.553 TFLOPS for the Quadro K5200. The Vega 16 also supports FP16 at 4.874 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro K5200 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Form factor differences are practical. The Vega 16 is an integrated GPU package (IGP) with no slot width, while the Quadro K5200 is a dual-slot card with a 267 mm length and 111 mm height, requiring one 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The Vega 16's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the Quadro K5200 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Release dates also differ: the Vega 16 launched in November 2018, the Quadro K5200 in July 2014.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but conditional conclusion. In raw compute throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 holds advantages in FP32 (3.553 TFLOPS vs 2.437 TFLOPS), texture rate (148.0 GTexel/s vs 76.16 GTexel/s), and shading unit count (2304 vs 1024). It also offers 8 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which matters for large datasets. For legacy OpenCL workloads, the Quadro K5200 wins by 4% in the database's head-to-head test.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 wins the aggregate benchmark battle. Its average score of 23250 versus 19602 places it 18.6% higher overall, and its 68th percentile ranking versus 64th confirms this. In Vulkan, it leads by 8.2%, and it delivers higher memory bandwidth (307.2 GB/s vs 192.3 GB/s) and significantly lower power draw (75 W vs 150 W). Its 14 nm process node and more recent release date (November 2018 vs July 2014) translate to better efficiency and modern API support.

The verdict depends on workload. Users prioritizing raw FP32 compute, texture throughput, or large memory capacity should choose the Quadro K5200. Users prioritizing modern API performance, bandwidth, power efficiency, or overall benchmark averages should choose the Radeon Pro Vega 16. The database shows one win each in head-to-head tests, but the Vega 16's aggregate score and percentile advantage make it the stronger all-around option in most scenarios.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |

|----------------|------------------------|---------------------|

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 815 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1190 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1200 MHz, 2.4 Gbps effective | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 1024 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 307.2 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 64 | 192 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 38.08 GPixel/s | 37.01 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 76.16 GTexel/s | 148.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.437 TFLOPS | 3.553 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 75 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None recorded | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None recorded | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | November 2018 | July 2014 |

| Predecessor | None recorded | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | None recorded | Quadro Maxwell |

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 wins on:

• Overall benchmark average: 23250 vs 19602, a 18.6% lead.
• Vulkan performance: 21832 vs 20180, an 8.2% win.
• Memory bandwidth: 307.2 GB/s vs 192.3 GB/s, a 60% advantage.
• Power efficiency: 75 W TDP vs 150 W TDP, half the power draw.
• Pixel rate: 38.08 GPixel/s vs 37.01 GPixel/s, a narrow 2.9% edge.
• Modern API support: Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1).
• FP16 capability: 4.874 TFLOPS with 2:1 ratio, no FP16 recorded for the rival.
• Manufacturing efficiency: 14 nm node versus 28 nm.

NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins on:

• OpenCL performance: 19024 vs 18268, a 4% win.
• FP32 compute: 3.553 TFLOPS vs 2.437 TFLOPS, a 45.8% advantage.
• Texture rate: 148.0 GTexel/s vs 76.16 GTexel/s, a 94.3% lead.
• Memory capacity: 8 GB vs 4 GB, double the VRAM.
• Shading unit count: 2304 vs 1024, more than double.
• TMU count: 192 vs 64, three times more.
• ROP count: 48 vs 32, a 50% edge.
• Display outputs: 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable device dependent outputs.
• Transistor count: 7,080 million vs no recorded count for the rival.

The use-case split is practical. For compute-heavy tasks relying on OpenCL or FP32 math, the Quadro K5200's higher shading unit count and texture throughput make it the stronger choice. For large memory footprints, its 8 GB capacity outperforms the Vega 16's 4 GB. Conversely, for Vulkan-based rendering, bandwidth-sensitive workloads, or power-constrained systems, the Radeon Pro Vega 16 wins clearly. Its 75 W TDP makes it suitable for integrated deployments, while the Quadro K5200's 150 W TDP and dual-slot form factor require a dedicated slot and 450 W PSU. The release date gap also matters: the Vega 16's 2018 launch brings newer API support and process technology, while the Quadro K5200's 2014 design remains viable only for legacy software stacks.