AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 550 and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The data shows a split decision: the RX 550 dominates in one major benchmark, while the Quadro K5100M takes the other. Crucially, the RX 550’s average benchmark score of 11,075 places it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5100M’s 10,043 average sits at the 48th percentile, indicating the newer AMD part holds a slight overall edge in the aggregate data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the Geekbench Metal test. The RX 550 delivers a score of 20,838, which is a massive 150.6% higher than the K5100M’s 8,315. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete rout. The RX 550 more than doubles the NVIDIA part’s output in this specific API, suggesting that the AMD architecture is far better optimized for Apple’s Metal framework, likely due to its newer GCN 4.0 design. This single result heavily skews the average benchmark score comparison, as the RX 550’s aggregate of 11,075 is 10.3% higher than the K5100M’s 10,043.

However, the story is not one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the older Quadro K5100M fights back, scoring 11,771 against the RX 550’s 11,063. That is a 6% advantage for the NVIDIA part. While this is a much smaller margin than the Metal result, it shows that the K5100M’s raw compute capabilities, driven by its 1,536 shading units, are still competitive in a more traditional, cross-vendor compute environment. The win is narrow, but it is a win nonetheless.

Looking at the broader context, the RX 550’s average score of 11,075 places it within a fraction of a percent of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, delta -0.1%) and the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047, delta 0.3%). This is remarkable for a low-end part from 2017. The K5100M’s 10,043 average, meanwhile, is closely matched with the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, delta -0.3%) and the Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013, delta 0.3%). The data suggests the RX 550 punches well above its class in synthetic benchmarks, while the K5100M sits in a more pedestrian performance tier relative to its own contemporaries.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The RX 550 is built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process node, packing 2,200 million transistors into a compact 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². In contrast, the K5100M uses TSMC’s older 28 nm node, with 3,540 million transistors spread across a much larger 294 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.0M per mm². This process advantage is a primary reason the RX 550 achieves a 50 W TDP, half of the K5100M’s 100 W, despite offering similar or better performance in key tests.

The compute configurations are starkly different. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The K5100M, however, is built around the Kepler architecture (GK104 chip) and features 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA part has three times the shader count and four times the texture units. Despite this, the RX 550’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture (with a 1,211.4 GFLOPS FP32 rate) manages to outperform the K5100M’s 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 in the Metal benchmark, highlighting that raw ALU count is not the sole determinant of real-world API performance.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The RX 550 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5100M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 115.2 GB/s. The bandwidth figures are nearly identical, but the K5100M has four times the memory capacity, a critical factor for professional workloads that require large datasets. The RX 550 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,211.4 GFLOPS), while the K5100M has no FP16 capability listed, a feature that can accelerate certain modern compute tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 550 is the clear winner in any scenario that leverages the Metal API. Its 150.6% advantage in that test suggests it is the superior choice for macOS-based applications, creative suites, or any workload that heavily utilizes Metal for GPU acceleration. The data also implies better power efficiency: at 50 W, it delivers a higher average benchmark score than the 100 W K5100M, making it a more attractive option for compact, low-power systems. Its 145 mm length and dual-slot design, with no external power connectors, means it can drop into a wide range of existing desktop PCs without PSU upgrades (the suggested PSU is 250 W).

The K5100M wins in the OpenCL compute arena, where its 6% lead indicates it handles general-purpose GPU compute tasks with a slight edge. Its 8 GB of VRAM is a decisive advantage for professional applications like video editing, 3D rendering, or large-scale data processing where memory capacity is the bottleneck. As an MXM Module, it is designed for mobile workstations, so its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs and lack of standard dimensions make it unsuitable for desktop builds. The K5100M’s 100 W TDP is also a consideration, but in a mobile chassis, this is a trade-off for the larger memory pool and higher shader count.

The Verdict

For the vast majority of users, the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the better product. The data shows it has a higher average benchmark score (11,075 vs 10,043), a better percentile ranking (50th vs 48th), and a massive win in the Metal benchmark that outweighs the K5100M’s minor OpenCL lead. It achieves this with half the power draw, a much smaller die, and a more modern architecture. The RX 550 is the rational choice for anyone building a new system or upgrading an existing desktop, provided their workloads are compatible with its 2 GB memory limit.

The Quadro K5100M is only the right choice for a very specific niche: users with a legacy mobile workstation that requires a drop-in MXM-B (3.0) upgrade. Its 8 GB of VRAM is genuinely valuable for large compute tasks, and its OpenCL performance is slightly better. However, its age (Kepler architecture, 2013 release), higher power draw, and poor Metal showing make it a hard sell in any other context. The data is clear: if you can use the RX 550, you should.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a higher average benchmark score of 11,075, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's 10,043, a difference of roughly 10.3%.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The RX 550 scores 20,838 in Geekbench Metal, which is 150.6% higher than the K5100M's 8,315, representing a dominant victory for the AMD part.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: Yes, the K5100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,771, beating the RX 550's 11,063 by a 6% margin.

Q: What are the memory size and bus width differences?

A: The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient according to the specs?

A: The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP, which is half of the K5100M's 100 W TDP, making it significantly more power-efficient.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The RX 550 is built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the K5100M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, giving the AMD part a manufacturing advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550 | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 32 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 2.369 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 50 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2017-04-19 | 2013-07-22 |