AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a fascinating split decision. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 delivers a decisive victory, scoring 11,431 against the AMD Radeon RX 550X's 9,662. That is an 18.3% margin, a substantial gap that suggests the Quadro's compute architecture holds a significant advantage in this particular workload. The scale of this win is notable; it is not a marginal edge but a clear generational-style leap in raw compute throughput for this API.

However, the tables turn completely when the test shifts to Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 550X rebounds forcefully, scoring 11,299 compared to the Quadro's 10,090. This represents a 10.7% advantage for the AMD card. The result is a mirror image of the OpenCL test, indicating that the RX 550X's architecture is far more efficient at extracting performance from the Vulkan API, while the Quadro's strength lies in the older, more established compute standard.

The average benchmark scores reflect this rivalry, though they obscure the individual test drama. The Quadro K2200 posts an average score of 10,761, while the RX 550X trails slightly at 10,481. This places both cards at the 49th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they are statistically dead even in overall performance. The delta between their averages is a mere 2.7%, a negligible difference that could easily be attributed to driver optimizations or specific workload characteristics rather than a fundamental hardware superiority.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for these scores. The Quadro K2200's average sits within a tight cluster: it is 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804) and 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883), while edging out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690) by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) by 1.2%. The RX 550X occupies a similar performance tier, landing 1% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582), 1.4% behind the RX 6600S (10,629), 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362). The implication is clear: neither card is a performance outlier, but both are competitive within their respective performance class.

The question the data raises is whether the average score is the whole story. The 18.3% OpenCL victory for the Quadro is a massive outlier compared to the single-digit deltas seen in the rival comparisons. Conversely, the RX 550X's 10.7% Vulkan win is similarly pronounced. This suggests that the choice between these two cards is less about raw capability and more about the software environment in which they will be deployed. In a compute-heavy OpenCL scenario, the Quadro is the clear winner; in a modern gaming or Vulkan-based workload, the RX 550X takes the crown.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has the higher average score at 10,761, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 550X's 10,481.

Q: Is the performance difference between the two cards consistent across different APIs?

A: No, it is highly inconsistent. The Quadro K2200 wins Geekbench OpenCL by 18.3%, while the AMD Radeon RX 550X wins Geekbench Vulkan by 10.7%, resulting in a 1-1 split in head-to-head wins.

Q: How does the Quadro K2200 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 450?

A: The Quadro's average score is 10,761, which is 0.4% lower than the Radeon Pro 450's average score of 10,804.

Q: What is the AMD Radeon RX 550X's performance relative to the NVIDIA Tesla C2075?

A: The RX 550X holds a 0.8% advantage in average score, posting 10,481 compared to the Tesla C2075's 10,400.

Q: Do both cards occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and the AMD Radeon RX 550X are placed at the 49th percentile when compared against all GPUs.

Q: Which card has a larger performance gap in its strongest benchmark?

A: The Quadro K2200's win in OpenCL is larger. Its 18.3% advantage overshadows the RX 550X's 10.7% lead in Vulkan.

The Verdict

The benchmark data does not declare a single, unambiguous winner; it defines two distinct winners for two distinct use cases. For environments prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the superior choice. Its 18.3% lead in that test is the largest margin recorded in any comparison and indicates a substantial advantage in that specific workload. The Quadro's average score also edges out the RX 550X, suggesting a slight overall edge in general compute tasks.

Conversely, for workloads that leverage the Vulkan API, the AMD Radeon RX 550X is the definitive pick. Its 10.7% victory in Geekbench Vulkan is decisive and shows that its architecture is better suited for modern, low-overhead graphics and compute APIs. Users who prioritize Vulkan-based gaming or applications should prefer the RX 550X without hesitation.

Ultimately, the 1-1 split in wins and the 49th percentile ranking for both cards indicate parity. The data suggests that the choice hinges entirely on software optimization rather than a fundamental hardware advantage. A user locked into an OpenCL pipeline would find the Quadro's performance compelling, while a user in a Vulkan-centric environment would see the RX 550X as the more capable card. The average score of the Quadro (10,761) is higher, but this is misleading because it is buoyed by its massive OpenCL score; the RX 550X demonstrates greater balance across the tested APIs.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in their core specifications, which helps explain their benchmark behavior. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 features a base clock of 1046 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the AMD Radeon RX 550X operates at a higher base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz. The RX 550X also has a faster memory clock, running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This results in a memory bandwidth advantage for the RX 550X, which offers 96.00 GB/s compared to the Quadro's 80.19 GB/s.

The cards are evenly matched in memory size (4 GB of GDDR5) and bus width (128 bit). However, the compute unit configurations are inverted. The Quadro K2200 has more shading units (640 vs. 512) and more texture mapping units (40 vs. 32), but both have the same number of ROPs (16). The Quadro also has a higher FP32 performance rating at 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus the RX 550X's 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The RX 550X counters with a higher pixel rate (18.93 GPixel/s vs. 17.98 GPixel/s) and a lower texture rate (37.86 GTexel/s vs. 44.96 GTexel/s). The RX 550X also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a feature the Quadro lacks. Power consumption differs, with the Quadro rated at 68 W and the RX 550X at 50 W. The RX 550X is also a dual-slot card with a shorter length of 145 mm, while the Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the RX 550X uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different origins and target markets. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a professional-grade part with a generation listed as "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)", and it is the successor to the Quadro Fermi line. In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 550X is based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Lexa chip manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It belongs to the Polaris (RX 500X) generation and is the successor to the older Polaris architecture.

The manufacturing process differences are stark. The Quadro's 28 nm node is significantly older and less dense than the RX 550X's 14 nm node. This is reflected in the transistor density: the RX 550X packs 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro manages only 12.6 million. Despite this, the Quadro has a die size of 148 mm², larger than the RX 550X's 103 mm², and contains 1,870 million transistors versus the RX 550X's 2,200 million. The RX 550X's newer process allows for more transistors in a smaller physical space.

The API support also differs. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. This difference in DirectX feature level (11_0 vs. 12_0) is notable and could impact compatibility with certain games or applications. The display outputs also vary, with the Quadro offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 550X provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 550X's DisplayPort 1.4a is a newer standard than the Quadro's DisplayPort 1.2. Both cards have a 250 W suggested PSU and use no power connectors. The Quadro is marked as the predecessor to Quadro Maxwell, while the RX 550X is succeeded by Vega.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput on the OpenCL API. Its 18.3% lead in that benchmark is the single largest performance gap observed, making it the obvious choice for OpenCL-centric professional applications, such as certain scientific computing or engineering simulation tasks. The Quadro also holds the overall average score advantage (10,761 vs. 10,481), suggesting it may be more consistent across a wider range of legacy compute workloads. Its higher FP32 rating of 1,438.7 GFLOPS supports this, indicating a theoretical capability for higher floating-point throughput.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins in modern, Vulkan-based environments. Its 10.7% victory in Geekbench Vulkan is a clear indicator of its strength in this API, making it the better choice for Vulkan-based games or applications that leverage this modern standard. The RX 550X also benefits from a newer architectural foundation (GCN 4.0 on 14 nm) and faster memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s), which could contribute to its better performance in memory-heavy scenarios. Its support for FP16 (1:1) is a feature absent from the Quadro, potentially offering an advantage in workloads that utilize mixed-precision computation. The RX 550X's lower power draw (50 W vs. 68 W) and shorter physical length (145 mm vs. 202 mm) also make it a more flexible option for space-constrained or power-sensitive builds, though it requires a dual-slot form factor.