AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by nearly six years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison is nuanced by the Quadro’s larger memory pool and professional-market positioning. The RX 5600 XT leads in every head-to-head test, yet the K5200 holds its own in specific compute-oriented scenarios where its 8 GB frame buffer matters more than raw shading throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a clear story of generational dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5600 XT scores 68,537 against the K5200’s 19,024, a delta of 260.3% in favor of the AMD card. This is not a marginal victory; it is a three-and-a-half-fold advantage in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result is similarly one-sided, with the RX 5600 XT posting 56,218 versus the K5200’s 20,180, a 178.6% lead. These are the only two tests both cards completed, so the head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for the RX 5600 XT and 0 for the K5200.

The RX 5600 XT’s average benchmark score across all tests is 20,713, which places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M390X at 20,662 (0.2% behind) and the Intel Arc A750 at 20,582 (0.6% behind). The K5200, meanwhile, averages 19,602, sitting in the 64th percentile. Its closest competitor is the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637, which is 0.2% ahead, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB trails by 1.4%. The overall average score gap between the two cards is 1,111 points, or roughly 5.7% in favor of the RX 5600 XT.

Looking beyond the shared tests, the RX 5600 XT has a broader benchmark profile that includes DirectX and Passmark results. Its Passmark G3D score is 13,457, and its GPU compute score is 6,296. In DirectX 9 it reaches 202, while DirectX 11 and 12 scores are 96 and 52 respectively. The K5200 has no comparable DirectX or Passmark data in this dataset, so those results cannot be directly compared. However, the Geekbench gap alone is sufficient to establish the RX 5600 XT as the faster card in compute and modern API workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The RX 5600 XT uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0 million per square millimeter. The K5200 is a Kepler-era card based on the GK110B chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process. It contains 7,080 million transistors spread across a much larger 561 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RX 5600 XT crams over three times more transistors per area, which explains its efficiency advantage.

Clock speeds reinforce this generational gap. The RX 5600 XT runs at a base clock of 1130 MHz and boosts to 1560 MHz, with a game clock of 1375 MHz. The K5200 is significantly slower, with a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 5600 XT uses 1500 MHz GDDR6 with 12 Gbps effective speed, while the K5200 relies on 1502 MHz GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective. The RX 5600 XT’s memory bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus, compared to the K5200’s 192.3 GB/s over a wider 256-bit bus.

Both cards have 2304 shading units, but the RX 5600 XT has 144 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 64 render output units (ROPs), while the K5200 has 192 TMUs and 48 ROPs. The RX 5600 XT’s pixel rate is 99.84 GPixel/s and texture rate is 224.6 GTexel/s, versus 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s for the K5200. FP32 compute is 7.188 TFLOPS for the AMD card and 3.553 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. The RX 5600 XT also supports FP16 at 14.38 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the K5200 has no FP16 support listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most workloads: the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT. It outperforms the Quadro K5200 by 260.3% in OpenCL and 178.6% in Vulkan, and its average benchmark score is 5.7% higher despite the K5200’s larger memory capacity. The RX 5600 XT also benefits from a modern 7 nm process, higher clocks, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. For gaming, DirectX workloads, or any modern compute task, the RX 5600 XT is the superior choice.

However, the K5200 is not without merit. It offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the RX 5600 XT’s 6 GB of GDDR6, and its 256-bit memory bus is wider. In professional applications that are memory-capacity-bound rather than compute-bound, the K5200’s extra 2 GB could be an advantage. It also draws the same 150 W TDP and uses a single 6-pin power connector, whereas the RX 5600 XT requires an 8-pin connector. For users with legacy PCIe 3.0 systems, the K5200’s PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is more compatible than the RX 5600 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x16, though both are backward compatible.

The verdict depends on the use case. If the workload is modern gaming, DirectX 12, or Vulkan compute, the RX 5600 XT wins decisively. If the workload is a legacy professional application that needs more than 6 GB of VRAM and can tolerate lower compute throughput, the K5200 remains viable. The percentile rankings are close—66th versus 64th—but the margin in actual benchmark scores is substantial.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 41.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1130 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1560 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1375 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| TMUs | 144 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 99.84 GPixel/s | 37.01 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 224.6 GTexel/s | 148.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.188 TFLOPS | 3.553 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 14.38 TFLOPS (2:1) | N/A |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Height | N/A | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT delivers 7.188 TFLOPS, exactly double the Quadro K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 have more memory bandwidth than the RX 5600 XT?

A: No. The RX 5600 XT has 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the K5200 has only 192.3 GB/s despite using a wider 256-bit bus.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Quadro K5200 wins?

A: In the two shared head-to-head tests, the K5200 wins zero. The RX 5600 XT wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 5600 XT has a density of 41.0M transistors per mm², while the K5200 has just 12.6M per mm².

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The RX 5600 XT features 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the K5200 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to nearest rivals?

A: The RX 5600 XT’s 20,713 average is 0.2% above the R9 M390X, while the K5200’s 19,602 average is 0.2% below the FirePro D300.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT wins in every measured category where data exists. Its 260.3% OpenCL advantage makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or machine learning inference. The 178.6% Vulkan lead ensures superior performance in modern cross-platform games and Vulkan-based applications. Its higher pixel rate (99.84 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s) and texture rate (224.6 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s) translate to better fill-rate-bound workloads. The RX 5600 XT also supports FP16 compute, which the K5200 lacks entirely, making it more versatile for half-precision workloads. Its 7 nm process and PCIe 4.0 interface future-proof it for newer motherboards and drivers.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins on memory capacity, offering 8 GB versus 6 GB, and a wider 256-bit bus. This gives it an edge in applications that require loading large datasets or textures that exceed 6 GB. It also has more TMUs (192 versus 144), which could help in texture-heavy workloads despite its lower clock speeds. The K5200’s dual DVI outputs are beneficial for legacy display setups, and its 6-pin power connector is more compatible with older power supplies. Its PCIe 3.0 interface matches older platforms without requiring BIOS updates for Resizable BAR or similar features. For professional users running software that is not optimized for RDNA architecture, the K5200’s Kepler maturity may offer better driver stability in legacy environments.