AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 550X and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target entirely different workloads and design philosophies. The RX 550X is a 14 nm Polaris-based part from 2018, while the K5100M is a 28 nm Kepler-based professional mobile workstation GPU from 2013. The benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, overall winner in the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, but the story is more nuanced when you look at the architecture, feature support, and the specific benchmark available.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M. The K5100M scores 11,771 points, which is 17.9% higher than the RX 550X’s 9,662 points. This is a significant margin in a compute-oriented API, and it reflects the K5100M’s fundamentally larger silicon: it packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, compared to the RX 550X’s 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. That said, the RX 550X is not without its own wins in other metrics.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the RX 550X actually holds a slight edge in aggregate performance. Its average benchmark score is 10,481, which is about 4.4% higher than the K5100M’s 10,043. This discrepancy between the single OpenCL test and the average suggests the RX 550X performs better in other, unlisted workloads. The RX 550X also has a better percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 49th percentile versus the K5100M’s 48th. In practical terms, this means the RX 550X is statistically a more balanced performer across a wider range of tests, even though it loses the specific OpenCL showdown.

Where the RX 550X truly shines is in its feature set and efficiency. It supports Vulkan 1.3, while the K5100M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. Its DirectX 12 support is also superior, with a full 12_0 feature level versus the K5100M’s 12 (11_0). The RX 550X also has a much higher clock speed, running at 1,100 MHz base and 1,183 MHz boost, compared to the K5100M’s fixed 771 MHz. This clock advantage helps the smaller AMD chip close the gap in raw throughput metrics, though it cannot overcome the K5100M’s massive lead in shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins in raw compute throughput. Its 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs are a 3x, 4x, and 2x advantage over the RX 550X’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, respectively. This translates directly to higher fill rates: the K5100M delivers 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s, versus the RX 550X’s 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance of 2.369 TFLOPS is nearly double the RX 550X’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The K5100M also offers double the memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB) and a wider 256-bit memory bus, giving it 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the RX 550X’s 96.00 GB/s. For professional workloads like rendering, simulation, or large dataset manipulation, the K5100M is the clear choice based on these numbers alone.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins in modern API compatibility and efficiency. Its Vulkan 1.3 support and full DirectX 12_0 feature level make it a better fit for newer games and applications that leverage these APIs. Its 14 nm process node, built by GlobalFoundries, is significantly more advanced than the K5100M’s 28 nm TSMC process, leading to a much lower TDP of 50 W versus 100 W. This means the RX 550X is far easier to cool and power, making it suitable for thinner laptops or systems with smaller power budgets. The RX 550X also has a higher transistor density at 21.4M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm², showing a much more efficient design. Its memory runs at a higher effective speed of 6 Gbps versus 3.6 Gbps, which partially compensates for its narrower 128-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The RX 550X is built on GCN 4.0, specifically the Lexa chip, part of the Polaris (RX 500X) generation. This is a 14 nm design from GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors packed into a compact 103 mm² die. The K5100M, in contrast, uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, belonging to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. It is a 28 nm design from TSMC, with 3,540 million transistors spread across a much larger 294 mm² die. The RX 550X’s newer process gives it a density advantage of 21.4M transistors per mm², versus 12.0M for the K5100M.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The RX 550X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 115.2 GB/s. While the K5100M has more capacity and bandwidth, the RX 550X’s memory clock is higher at 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The K5100M also lacks any FP16 support, with null values for that metric, while the RX 550X offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, which is useful for certain compute tasks and machine learning inference.

In terms of physical and interface differences, the RX 550X is a dual-slot card with no power connectors, using a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and measures 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length. It has standard display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The K5100M is an MXM Module (MXM-B 3.0) with no defined dimensions and displays that are portable device dependent. The K5100M’s TDP is double that of the RX 550X at 100 W versus 50 W, and it has no suggested PSU rating, while the RX 550X recommends a 250 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward verdict for different user profiles. If your priority is raw compute performance, memory capacity, and bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the stronger choice. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 17.9%, has double the VRAM, and offers more than double the FP32 throughput. This makes it the better pick for professional 3D modeling, CAD, or any GPU-accelerated compute task that can utilize its 1,536 cores and 8 GB of memory. Its 2.0% deltaPct against the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 in its nearest rivals list also shows it sits comfortably in a professional performance tier.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon RX 550X is the better choice for modern gaming and API-forward applications. Its Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_0 support are objectively newer and more capable than the K5100M’s Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). Its 50 W TDP makes it a far more practical option for a laptop or small form factor system. The RX 550X also has a higher average benchmark score (10,481 vs 10,043) and a better percentile rank (49 vs 48), indicating it is more consistent across a variety of tests. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M, which it beats by 1.2%, showing it can hold its own against newer discrete mobile parts.

In short, the K5100M is a compute workhorse from a bygone era, while the RX 550X is a more modern, efficient, and API-complete solution. The choice hinges on whether you need the K5100M’s massive compute and memory resources or the RX 550X’s modern feature set and low power draw. For a legacy workstation, the K5100M wins. For a lightweight, modern system, the RX 550X is the logical pick.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is faster, scoring 11,771 versus the AMD Radeon RX 550X’s 9,662, a 17.9% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 550X have better Vulkan support than the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M?

A: Yes. The RX 550X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the K5100M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How much more memory bandwidth does the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M have?

A: The K5100M provides 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 19.2 GB/s more than the RX 550X’s 96.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W, making the RX 550X twice as power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X has a higher average benchmark score of 10,481, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M’s 10,043.

Q: What is the difference in their manufacturing process nodes?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X is built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M uses a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550X | 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 | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 32 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 24.67 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 98.69 GTexel/s |

| 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 | 2018-12-15 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Polaris | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Vega | Quadro Maxwell-M |