AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 550 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they represent different design philosophies and target completely different usage scenarios. The data shows a split decision: the RX 550 claims a decisive victory in one benchmark, while the Quadro K2200 counters with a narrower win in another. Their average benchmark scores are close, with the RX 550 at 11,075 and the Quadro K2200 at 10,761, a difference of roughly 2.9%. This places the RX 550 at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2200 sits just one percentile point lower at 49th. The head-to-head results reveal that the choice between these two hinges entirely on the workload, with the RX 550 showing a massive lead in one specific API and the Quadro K2200 edging ahead in another.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the Geekbench Vulkan test. The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 12,270, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 manages only 10,090. This translates to a 21.6% advantage for the RX 550, a substantial margin that clearly demonstrates the architectural and driver-level superiority of the AMD card for Vulkan workloads. This is a dominant win, and the RX 550’s support for Vulkan 1.3 likely contributes to this performance gap. The Quadro K2200, despite also supporting Vulkan (version 1.4), falls far behind in actual execution, indicating that raw API version support alone does not guarantee performance.

Conversely, the Geekbench OpenCL test tells a different story. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11,431, narrowly edging out the AMD Radeon RX 550’s score of 11,063. The delta is only 3.2% in favor of the Quadro, a modest but consistent win. This result is particularly interesting because the RX 550 has a higher FP32 compute rating (1,211.4 GFLOPS) than the Quadro K2200 (1,438.7 GFLOPS), yet it still loses in this test. This suggests that the Quadro K2200’s Maxwell architecture and its higher shading unit count (640 vs. 512) are more effective at extracting performance in OpenCL tasks, despite the RX 550’s more modern 14 nm process node and higher transistor density.

Looking at the broader picture, the two cards split their benchmark wins exactly: one win each. The average benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity. The RX 550’s average of 11,075 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, both of which have an average score of 11,088. It is also 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225). The Quadro K2200, with its average of 10,761, is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804), 0.7% ahead of the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690), 1.1% behind the GeForce MX350 (10,883), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629). This data shows that both cards are firmly in the mid-range of performance, surrounded by a mix of professional and consumer parts, but they achieve their scores through very different means.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins decisively, scoring 12,270 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s 10,090. This represents a 21.6% advantage for the RX 550.

Q: Which card performs better in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 takes the win in OpenCL, scoring 11,431 against the RX 550’s 11,063. The Quadro K2200’s lead is 3.2%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has an average benchmark score of 11,075, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s 10,761. This places the RX 550 at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2200 is at the 49th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card based on average score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550’s closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which has an average score of 11,088, making it just 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 450, with an average score of 10,804, which is 0.4% higher.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. While both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, the RX 550 has a higher DirectX feature level, and the Quadro K2200 has a higher Vulkan version.

Q: Is one card significantly faster than the other in raw compute power?

A: Yes. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has a higher FP32 performance rating at 1,438.7 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS. However, this raw compute advantage does not translate into wins across all benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, picture: for users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications or games, the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the superior choice. Its 21.6% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test is a strong indicator of its capability in that API, and its higher average benchmark score (11,075 vs. 10,761) and percentile ranking (50th vs. 49th) reinforce this. The RX 550 also boasts a more modern feature set, with a newer architecture (GCN 4.0 vs. Maxwell), a smaller process node (14 nm vs. 28 nm), and a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 vs. 11_0). For any workload that leverages Vulkan, the RX 550 is the clear winner.

On the other hand, for users whose primary applications rely on OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the better option. Its 3.2% win in the Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with its higher shading unit count (640 vs. 512) and higher FP32 compute (1,438.7 GFLOPS), suggests it is more effective at general-purpose compute tasks. The Quadro K2200 also offers a larger memory pool (4 GB vs. 2 GB), which could be beneficial for certain workloads that require more data to be held on the GPU. Its single-slot design and lower length (202 mm vs. 145 mm) may also be a factor for specific system builds, though the RX 550 is shorter.

Ultimately, the choice is workload-dependent. The RX 550 is the better pick for modern API-centric applications, particularly Vulkan. The Quadro K2200 is the better pick for OpenCL-heavy tasks and scenarios where the extra memory is critical. There is no universal winner; the benchmark data shows a split decision that favors each card in its respective domain.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is in memory. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 has only 2 GB. However, the RX 550 has a higher memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s compared to the Quadro K2200’s 80.19 GB/s, despite both using a 128-bit bus. The memory clock also differs, with the RX 550 running at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and the Quadro K2200 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

In terms of core configuration, the Quadro K2200 has more shading units (640) and texture mapping units (40) than the RX 550 (512 and 32, respectively). Both cards have 16 ROPs. The Quadro K2200 also has a higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s vs. 18.93 GPixel/s) and texture rate (44.96 GTexel/s vs. 37.86 GTexel/s), though the RX 550’s pixel rate is slightly higher. The RX 550 has a higher base clock (1100 MHz vs. 1046 MHz) and boost clock (1183 MHz vs. 1124 MHz).

The physical and power characteristics also differ. The RX 550 has a lower TDP of 50 W and is a dual-slot card, while the Quadro K2200 has a TDP of 68 W and is a single-slot card. Neither card requires power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W PSU. The RX 550 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro K2200 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The RX 550 is shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches), while the Quadro K2200 is longer at 202 mm (8 inches) and has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The display outputs also vary: the RX 550 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro K2200 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on the Lexa chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries and contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M / mm². The Quadro K2200, in contrast, uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC and contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 12.6M / mm².

The RX 550 supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both rated at 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The Quadro K2200 does not list FP16 support. In terms of API support, the RX 550 has a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 vs. 11_0) and a newer architecture, while the Quadro K2200 supports Vulkan 1.4, which is a newer version than the RX 550’s Vulkan 1.3. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The RX 550’s predecessor is Arctic Islands, with a successor of Vega, while the Quadro K2200’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi, with a successor of Quadro Maxwell.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins in scenarios that leverage the Vulkan API. Its 21.6% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test is the single largest performance margin in the head-to-head data. This makes it the superior choice for users running Vulkan-based games or compute applications. Its higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s) and faster memory clock (1750 MHz) also give it an advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, despite having less total memory. Its lower TDP (50 W) and shorter length (145 mm) make it a more efficient and compact option for smaller builds.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins in OpenCL-based workloads. Its 3.2% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with its higher FP32 compute (1,438.7 GFLOPS) and more shading units (640), indicates that it is better suited for general-purpose compute tasks. Its 4 GB of memory is double that of the RX 550, making it the better choice for workloads that require a larger frame buffer or dataset. Its single-slot design and support for Vulkan 1.4 are additional points in its favor, though the latter does not translate into a benchmark win. The Quadro K2200 is the pick for OpenCL-heavy professional applications that can utilize the extra memory and compute throughput.