AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and AMD Radeon PRO W7500 compare in raw compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 58,213 versus 19,024 for the Quadro K5200, a 67.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 68,634 versus 20,180, a 70.6% lead.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a higher average benchmark score of 19,602 compared to 16,415 for the Radeon PRO W7500. The K5200 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, while the W7500 sits at the 59th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: The Quadro K5200's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, 0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, 0.8% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, 1% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19,334, 1.4% behind). The Radeon PRO W7500's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16,408, 0% difference), AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361, 0.3% behind), AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (16,351, 0.4% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504, 0.5% ahead).

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: Both cards have 8 GB of memory, but they use different types. The Quadro K5200 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7500 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested power supply with a 1x 6-pin connector. The Radeon PRO W7500 has a TDP of 70 W, requires a 250 W suggested power supply, and needs no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon PRO W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors onto a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The Radeon PRO W7500 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip (codename Hotpink Bonefish), built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 13,300 million transistors on a much smaller 204 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm².

The compute layouts differ substantially. The Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation units. The Radeon PRO W7500 has fewer shading units at 1,792, fewer texture units at 112, but more ROPs at 64. The Radeon PRO W7500 also includes 28 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro K5200 has none. Neither card features tensor cores.

Clock speeds show a clear generational shift. The Quadro K5200 runs at a base clock of 667 MHz with a boost of 771 MHz. The Radeon PRO W7500 runs at 1,500 MHz base and 1,700 MHz boost, more than double the older card's frequencies. Memory clocks follow the same trend: the K5200's GDDR5 runs at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the W7500's GDDR6 runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

The Radeon PRO W7500's architecture delivers higher throughput rates despite fewer cores. Its pixel rate is 108.8 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s for the K5200, and its texture rate is 190.4 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures show the largest gap: 12.19 TFLOPS for the W7500 versus 3.553 TFLOPS for the K5200. The W7500 also has FP16 capability at 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which the K5200 lacks entirely.

The physical design differs as well. The Quadro K5200 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long and 111 mm high, with power delivered through a single 6-pin connector. The Radeon PRO W7500 is a single-slot card, 216 mm long, 115 mm high, and 20 mm wide, requiring no power connectors at all. The K5200 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 in both recorded tests. The Geekbench OpenCL test has the W7500 scoring 58,213 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024. This represents a 67.3% delta in favor of the newer card. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger margin: 68,634 for the W7500 versus 20,180 for the K5200, a 70.6% difference.

These results are consistent with the architectural advantages discussed above. The W7500's higher clock speeds, newer RDNA 3.0 architecture, and support for modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4 contribute to its substantial lead. The K5200's Kepler architecture, despite having more shading units, cannot compensate for its much lower clock speeds and older instruction set efficiency.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story, however. The K5200 averages 19,602 across all recorded benchmarks, while the W7500 averages 16,415. This discrepancy arises because the head-to-head tests only cover OpenCL and Vulkan, while the average includes additional tests like Passmark DirectX 10, 11, 12, and 9, plus G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. The W7500's Passmark scores are mixed: 65 in DirectX 10, 125 in DirectX 11, 46 in DirectX 12, 200 in DirectX 9, 1,174 in G2D, 13,368 in G3D, and 5,910 in GPU compute. These lower DirectX scores pull its average down relative to the K5200, which only has the two Geekbench results in its benchmark set.

The percentile rankings reflect the average performance. The K5200 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, while the W7500 sits at the 59th percentile. This means the K5200 outperforms a slightly larger fraction of the GPU population in aggregate, even though it loses decisively in the specific OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is the most fundamental difference: 28 nm for the K5200 versus 6 nm for the W7500. Transistor counts are 7,080 million versus 13,300 million, with die sizes of 561 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² for the K5200 and 65.2M per mm² for the W7500.

Clock speeds: the K5200 has a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, while the W7500 has a 1,500 MHz base and 1,700 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for GDDR5 versus 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for GDDR6.

Memory configuration: both have 8 GB, but the bus widths differ at 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth favors the W7500 at 256.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s for the K5200.

Compute units: the K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 28 ray tracing cores. The K5200 has no RT cores.

Performance rates: pixel rate is 37.01 GPixel/s versus 108.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 148.0 GTexel/s versus 190.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.553 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS. The W7500 also has FP16 at 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1), while the K5200 has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical: TDP is 150 W versus 70 W. The K5200 is dual-slot with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The W7500 is single-slot with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Dimensions: 267 mm x 111 mm versus 216 mm x 115 mm x 20 mm. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs: the K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

API support: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.2.175 versus Vulkan 1.4.

Production status: the K5200 is end-of-life, released 2014-07-21, with a predecessor of Quadro Fermi and successor of Quadro Maxwell. The W7500 is active, released 2023-08-02, with a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega and no successor listed. Its launch MSRP is 429 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7500 wins in every head-to-head benchmark category recorded. Its OpenCL score of 58,213 is more than three times the K5200's 19,024. Its Vulkan score of 68,634 is more than three times the K5200's 20,180. The W7500 also wins on raw compute specifications, with higher FP32 throughput, better memory bandwidth, and support for ray tracing and FP16 workloads. It consumes less power, fits in a single slot, and requires no external power connectors, making it the clear choice for modern compute tasks.

The Quadro K5200 wins on aggregate benchmark standing. Its average score of 19,602 places it at the 64th percentile, above the W7500's 59th percentile. Its nearest rival list shows it trading blows with cards like the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (0.8% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (1% ahead), indicating it still holds its own in certain legacy workloads. The K5200's 256-bit memory bus and higher ROP count relative to shading units may benefit specific older applications that are not represented in the modern OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

The K5200 also wins on compatibility with older display outputs. Its 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 connectors support legacy monitors and equipment that may not have DisplayPort 2.1 inputs. The card's larger physical footprint and dual-slot design, while less convenient, does not hinder its operation in workstations designed for full-length cards.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward split. For anyone performing modern compute workloads, particularly those using OpenCL or Vulkan, the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the superior choice. It delivers 67.3% higher OpenCL performance and 70.6% higher Vulkan performance than the NVIDIA Quadro K5200. It also brings current API support, ray tracing capability, and a 70 W TDP that requires no power connectors, making it far easier to install in compact systems.

For users running legacy applications that rely on older DirectX versions or specific workstation software tuned for Kepler-era GPUs, the Quadro K5200 holds its own. Its 64th percentile standing and average score of 19,602 exceed the W7500's 59th percentile and 16,415 average. The K5200's 2x DVI outputs and proven Kepler architecture may be the safer bet for older infrastructure.

The Radeon PRO W7500 is the forward-looking purchase. It is an active product with a launch MSRP of 429 USD, built on a modern 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors and 12.19 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Quadro K5200 is end-of-life, dating from 2014, and its 28 nm process and 3.553 TFLOPS cannot compete with modern software demands.

The verdict is clear: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins decisively in performance and efficiency. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 remains relevant only for specific legacy use cases where its aggregate benchmark position and older display outputs are preferable. Choose the W7500 for new builds, current workloads, and any ray tracing or FP16 requirements. Choose the K5200 only if you must support DVI monitors or run software that predates modern compute standards.