AMD Radeon R9 M290X vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between compute-oriented workloads and graphics API performance. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X wins the only direct head-to-head comparison in the database, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 22,028 against the NVIDIA Quadro K5200's 19,024, a 15.8% advantage. That single win gives the Radeon a 1-0 record in direct comparisons. The OpenCL result reflects raw compute throughput, where the Radeon's higher clock speeds (850 MHz base, 900 MHz boost versus 667 MHz base, 771 MHz boost for the Quadro) help it overcome a substantial deficit in shading unit count.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200, however, has no recorded benchmark wins in the database. Its strengths appear in the Vulkan API test, where it scores 20,180, a figure that exceeds its own OpenCL result of 19,024 by 6.1%. The Vulkan score indicates that the Kepler architecture handles modern graphics APIs efficiently, but since there is no corresponding Vulkan result for the Radeon R9 M290X in the database, no direct comparison can be made on that test. The Radeon has no Vulkan benchmark recorded at all, while the Quadro does, which suggests the NVIDIA card has broader API coverage in the database's test suite.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Radeon R9 M290X averages 23,276 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K5200 averages 19,602, good for the 64th percentile. The Radeon sits 18.7% higher in average score, a margin that aligns with its OpenCL victory. The nearest rivals to each card reinforce the positioning: the Radeon's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23,273 (a 0% delta), while the Quadro's nearest is the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 (a -0.2% delta). The Radeon competes in a slightly higher performance tier than the Quadro based on these aggregate figures.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M290X averages 23,276 across its recorded benchmarks, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200's 19,602. The Radeon also ranks higher in the overall distribution, sitting in the 68th percentile of all GPUs versus the Quadro's 64th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon R9 M290X scores 22,028 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Quadro K5200's 19,024 by 15.8%. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded for both cards.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The Quadro has a Vulkan score of 20,180, which is 6.1% higher than its own OpenCL score. However, the Radeon has no Vulkan benchmark recorded, so there is no direct comparison available for that test.

Q: What are the nearest competitors to each card in the database?

A: The Radeon R9 M290X's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6600M with an average score of 23,273, effectively identical at a 0% delta. The Quadro K5200's closest rival is the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637, a -0.2% delta (the Quadro is marginally ahead).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, nearly double the Radeon R9 M290X's 1,280. Despite this, the Radeon still wins the OpenCL benchmark, indicating that clock speed and architecture efficiency compensate for the unit count disadvantage.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The Radeon R9 M290X was released on January 8, 2014, and the Quadro K5200 followed on July 21, 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one benchmark where both GPUs have results: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R9 M290X scores 22,028, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 19,024. The 15.8% delta in favor of the Radeon is substantial, especially considering the hardware specifications involved.

The Radeon achieves this with 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. Its 2.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute comes from an 850 MHz base clock boosting to 900 MHz. The Quadro K5200 counters with 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, producing 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 compute from a 667 MHz base clock boosting to 771 MHz. On paper, the Quadro holds a 54.2% advantage in raw FP32 throughput, yet the Radeon wins the OpenCL workload by 15.8%. This outcome suggests that OpenCL on GCN 1.0 architecture extracts more practical performance per theoretical FLOP than Kepler does, or that the benchmark workload favors the Radeon's memory subsystem characteristics.

Memory configuration also plays a role. The Radeon uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus width but achieves 192.3 GB/s, a 25.2% bandwidth advantage. The Quadro's memory clocks run at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective transfer, while the Radeon's memory runs at 1200 MHz with 4.8 Gbps effective. Even with superior bandwidth and capacity, the Quadro could not convert those resources into an OpenCL win.

The average benchmark scores mirror the head-to-head result. The Radeon's 23,276 average is 18.7% higher than the Quadro's 19,602. The Radeon's nearest rival, the RX 6600M, scores 23,273, a margin of just 0.01%, placing the Radeon at the edge of a competitive cluster. The Quadro's nearest rival, the FirePro D300, scores 19,637, only 0.2% behind the Quadro, indicating the NVIDIA card sits at the lower boundary of its performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply in core configuration. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 packs 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These differences produce distinct pixel and texture rates: the Quadro reaches 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s, while the Radeon manages 28.80 GPixel/s and 72.00 GTexel/s. The Quadro leads pixel throughput by 28.5% and texture throughput by 105.6%.

Clock speeds favor the Radeon. Its base clock of 850 MHz and boost of 900 MHz dwarf the Quadro's 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. The Radeon's boost clock runs 16.7% higher than the Quadro's. Memory clocks also differ: the Radeon runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), giving the NVIDIA card a 25.2% bandwidth advantage despite identical 256-bit bus widths.

Memory capacity differs by a factor of two. The Quadro ships with 8 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon ships with 4 GB. Both use GDDR5 memory. The power envelope also separates them: the Radeon has a 100 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors, while the Quadro has a 150 W TDP, a dual-slot form factor, a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 450 W power supply. The physical dimensions reflect the form factor difference. The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the Radeon has no recorded dimensions due to its portable-device-oriented MXM design.

Display outputs also differ. The Quadro provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Radeon's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning no fixed set of connectors can be assumed. Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170; the Quadro supports the same DirectX and OpenGL versions but has Vulkan 1.2.175, a marginally newer revision.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon R9 M290X uses the Neptune chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die contains 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. It belongs to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation and follows the Solar System predecessor, with Polaris Mobile as its successor. The Radeon's GCN 1.0 design emphasizes compute throughput per watt, with a 100 W TDP that suits its MXM mobile form factor.

The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip built on Kepler architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die is significantly larger at 561 mm² and contains 7,080 million transistors, producing a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. This makes the Quadro's die 164.6% larger and its transistor count 152.9% higher than the Radeon's, though the density is slightly lower. The Quadro belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, with Quadro Fermi as its predecessor and Quadro Maxwell as its successor.

The Kepler architecture in the Quadro allocates its abundant transistor budget to a massive array of CUDA cores (2,304 shading units) and texture units (192). GCN 1.0 in the Radeon takes a leaner approach, fitting 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs into a much smaller die. The architectural philosophies diverge in how they handle the same 28 nm process: NVIDIA built a large, power-hungry workstation chip with a 150 W TDP, while AMD built a compact, efficient mobile chip at 100 W.

Both architectures lack dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, as neither field is populated in the database. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with the Quadro's Vulkan support (1.2.175) being slightly newer than the Radeon's (1.2.170). The foundry and process node are identical, but the design strategies could hardly be more different: a dense, high-clock mobile processor from AMD versus a sprawling, high-core-count workstation processor from NVIDIA. The benchmark results show that the Radeon's approach wins the recorded compute test, while the Quadro's Vulkan capability suggests its architecture remains viable for modern graphics API workloads despite the OpenCL loss.