AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and AMD Radeon RX 460 are separated by two years of GPU evolution, yet their benchmark averages land within striking distance of each other. The Quadro K5200, a Kepler-based professional card from 2014, averages 19,602 points across its benchmark suite, while the RX 460, a GCN 4.0 consumer part from 2016, averages 18,373 points. That is a 6.7% gap in favor of the older, larger NVIDIA card, but the head-to-head results show a split decision. The K5200 wins OpenCL by 6.5%, while the RX 460 edges out a Vulkan victory by a razor-thin 0.1%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL result is the clearest separation between these two cards. The Quadro K5200 scores 19,024 points against the RX 460’s 17,855, a 6.5% advantage. That margin is meaningful in compute workloads, where the K5200’s 2,304 shading units and 192 texture mapping units provide raw throughput that the RX 460’s 896 shading units and 56 TMUs cannot match. The K5200 also posts a higher pixel rate of 37.01 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 148.0 GTexel/s is more than double the RX 460’s 67.20 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 2.150 TFLOPS for the RX 460.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. The RX 460 scores 20,198 points, barely ahead of the K5200’s 20,180 points, a 0.1% delta. This near-tie is notable because the RX 460 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the K5200 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 460 also has a higher boost clock of 1,200 MHz versus 771 MHz, which helps it close the gap in APIs that favor higher-frequency, lower-latency execution. In terms of average benchmark score, the K5200’s 19,602 places it at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 460’s 18,373 sits at the 62nd percentile.

The nearest rival data reinforces the closeness of these cards. The K5200’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro D300, which scores 19,637 points, just 0.2% higher. The RX 460’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383 points, only 0.1% above it. Both cards are effectively trading blows with cards from entirely different market segments. The K5200 is 1% ahead of the Radeon RX 7900 XTX in average score, while the RX 460 sits 1% behind the Radeon Pro 5700.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5200 is the compute-oriented choice. Its OpenCL lead of 6.5% over the RX 460, combined with its higher FP32 throughput and double the memory bandwidth, makes it better suited for tasks that stress raw arithmetic and memory throughput. The K5200’s 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 192.3 GB/s, versus the RX 460’s 2 GB on a 128-bit bus at 112.0 GB/s. For large datasets or multi-pass rendering, that memory capacity and bandwidth advantage is decisive. The K5200’s 48 ROPs also give it a pixel-fill advantage that benefits high-resolution compositing or anti-aliasing workloads.

The Radeon RX 460 wins on efficiency and modern API support. Its 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, versus the K5200’s 28 nm TSMC node, allows it to achieve 75% of the K5200’s FP32 performance while drawing only half the power (75 W TDP versus 150 W). The RX 460 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) fully, while the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). In Vulkan, the RX 460’s 1.3 support and its 0.1% benchmark win indicate better driver optimization for modern graphics APIs. The RX 460 also has native FP16 support at 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), which the K5200 lacks entirely.

For gaming, the RX 460 is the practical pick. It has a higher boost clock, modern display outputs including HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, and a smaller physical footprint at 170 mm length versus 267 mm. The K5200’s display outputs are limited to 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, which lack the bandwidth for modern high-refresh displays. The RX 460 also runs without external power connectors, making it a drop-in upgrade for older systems with a 250 W power supply recommendation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip on Kepler architecture, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RX 460 uses the Baffin chip on GCN 4.0, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on 14 nm. That chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a far higher density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The K5200 is the larger, more complex chip; the RX 460 is the denser, more modern one.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, achieving 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 460 uses 2 GB across a 128-bit bus, half the bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s. The K5200’s memory clock runs at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the RX 460’s runs at 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The RX 460 compensates for its narrower bus with a higher clock, but cannot overcome the capacity gap.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The K5200 fields 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K5200’s FP32 throughput of 3.553 TFLOPS is 65% higher than the RX 460’s 2.150 TFLOPS. The RX 460, however, supports FP16 at the same rate as FP32, a feature absent on the K5200. The K5200’s pixel rate is 37.01 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 148.0 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s.

API support favors the newer card. The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. Both are end-of-life products, but the RX 460’s newer feature set gives it longer relevance in modern software. The K5200’s PCIe interface is x16, while the RX 460 uses x8; both are PCIe 3.0.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins OpenCL by 6.5%, scoring 19,024 versus the RX 460’s 17,855. Its FP32 throughput of 3.553 TFLOPS and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth are the primary drivers.

Q: Is the RX 460 faster in Vulkan?

A: Yes, marginally. The RX 460 scores 20,198 in Geekbench Vulkan, just 0.1% ahead of the K5200’s 20,180. The RX 460’s Vulkan 1.3 support gives it a modern API edge.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 460 has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The K5200 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply with one 6-pin connector. The RX 460 has a 75 W TDP, needs only a 250 W supply, and draws power entirely from the PCIe slot.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern games?

A: The RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 460 is better prepared for current titles.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The K5200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, a dual-slot card. The RX 460 is 170 mm long, also dual-slot, and does not require external power connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For compute-heavy professional tasks, the Quadro K5200 is the stronger card. Its 6.5% OpenCL lead, 8 GB memory capacity, and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale rendering or scientific workloads. The 37.01 GPixel/s pixel rate and 148.0 GTexel/s texture rate give it a fill-rate advantage that the RX 460 cannot approach. The K5200’s 64th percentile ranking and its 1% lead over the Radeon RX 7900 XTX in average score further confirm its compute pedigree.

For modern gaming, the RX 460 is the better choice despite its lower average score. Its Vulkan 1.3 support, DirectX 12 (12_0) compliance, and 0.1% Vulkan benchmark win over the K5200 indicate better compatibility with current APIs. The RX 460’s 75 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and 170 mm length make it an easy fit in compact systems. Its 62nd percentile ranking is close to the K5200’s 64th, but it achieves that with far less power and a newer feature set.

The verdict is conditional. If the priority is raw compute throughput and memory capacity, the Quadro K5200 wins outright. If the priority is efficiency, modern API support, and practical gaming performance, the RX 460 is the rational pick. The benchmark data shows a 6.5% OpenCL gap in one direction and a 0.1% Vulkan gap in the other, making this a case where the right answer depends entirely on the intended use case.