AMD Radeon RX 560X vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and AMD Radeon RX 560X represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by nearly four years of technological evolution. The data reveals a fascinating split: the older Kepler-based professional card wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads, while the newer Polaris-based consumer card edges ahead in Vulkan graphics. This is not a simple generational victory, but a nuanced trade-off between raw compute resources and architectural efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split the two cards cleanly by workload type. The Quadro K5200 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 19,024, beating the RX 560X’s 17,020 by a substantial 11.8%. This indicates that the Quadro’s massive compute configuration—2304 shading units versus 1024 on the RX 560X—delivers a significant advantage in general-purpose GPU compute tasks that scale well with parallel hardware.

Conversely, the RX 560X wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 20,231, narrowly edging out the Quadro’s 20,180 by just 0.3%. While the margin is slim, the direction is meaningful. The RX 560X’s newer GCN 4.0 architecture, with its modern Vulkan 1.3 API support compared to the Quadro’s Vulkan 1.2.175, appears better optimized for modern graphics APIs. The Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_1) support also lags behind the RX 560X’s DirectX 12 (12_0), suggesting the AMD card is better prepared for contemporary gaming and graphics workloads.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this split: the Quadro K5200 averages 19,602 points across both tests, while the RX 560X averages 18,626. That 976-point gap places the Quadro in the 64th percentile of all GPUs, versus the RX 560X’s 62nd percentile. The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (1% slower) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (1.4% slower), while the RX 560X sits near the AMD FirePro D500 (0.5% slower) and NVIDIA Tesla K80 (1.3% slower). This positioning suggests the Quadro punches well above its age in raw compute, while the RX 560X is more of a mid-pack performer.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is vast. The Quadro K5200 uses NVIDIA’s GK110B chip on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a massive die: 561 mm² housing 7,080 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The sheer scale of this chip is its defining characteristic—it was designed for maximum compute throughput in professional workloads.

The RX 560X, by contrast, uses AMD’s Polaris 21 chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a much more modern 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is a mere 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, achieving a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm²—nearly double that of the Quadro. This density advantage reflects the newer manufacturing process and explains how AMD achieves competitive performance with far fewer physical resources.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of efficiency versus brute force. The Quadro runs at a modest 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, while the RX 560X runs at 1,175 MHz base and 1,275 MHz boost. The RX 560X’s higher clocks help compensate for its smaller configuration, but the Quadro’s raw resource counts dominate: 192 texture mapping units versus 64, and 48 raster output pipelines versus 16. The pixel rate of 37.01 GPixel/s on the Quadro versus 20.40 GPixel/s on the RX 560X, and texture rate of 148.0 GTexel/s versus 81.60 GTexel/s, both favor the NVIDIA card.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Quadro offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 560X provides only 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, resulting in 112.0 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for the Quadro’s compute performance, though the RX 560X compensates with faster effective memory speed of 7 Gbps versus 6 Gbps on the Quadro.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head benchmark results tell a story of specialization. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5200 achieves 19,024 points against the RX 560X’s 17,020, a delta of 11.8% in favor of NVIDIA. This is a decisive victory, and it aligns perfectly with the Quadro’s specification sheet: 2304 shading units, 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and nearly double the memory bandwidth of its competitor. For compute-heavy tasks like scientific simulation or rendering, this card is clearly the more capable tool.

The Vulkan test is much closer and flips the result. The RX 560X scores 20,231 versus the Quadro’s 20,180, a margin of just 0.3%. While the absolute difference is tiny, the fact that the RX 560X wins at all is notable given its 4 GB memory and 128-bit bus. The GCN 4.0 architecture’s superior Vulkan implementation, combined with its 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio (2.611 TFLOPS for both), suggests AMD designed this chip with modern graphics APIs in mind. The Quadro’s Kepler architecture, released in 2014, simply lacks the driver-level optimizations and hardware features for contemporary Vulkan workloads.

These results create a clear picture: the Quadro K5200 is a compute powerhouse that happens to handle Vulkan adequately, while the RX 560X is a graphics-focused card that holds its own in compute despite being outgunned on paper. The average benchmark score of 19,602 for the Quadro versus 18,626 for the RX 560X reflects this overall balance, but the per-test breakdown is far more informative than the aggregate.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the obvious architectural split. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the Quadro K5200 draws 150 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W power supply, while the RX 560X sips just 75 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and runs on a suggested 250 W PSU. This makes the AMD card dramatically easier to integrate into existing systems.

Physical dimensions also differ significantly. The Quadro is 267 mm long (10.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), while the RX 560X is a compact 170 mm (6.7 inches). Both are dual-slot designs, but the Quadro’s larger footprint reflects its more complex cooling requirements. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 560X uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which could impact bandwidth-sensitive workloads on older platforms.

Display outputs present another contrast. The Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 560X provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The AMD card’s newer DisplayPort 1.4a and HDMI 2.0b support future-proofs it for modern monitors, whereas the Quadro’s older outputs may require adapters for current displays. The RX 560X also supports Vulkan 1.3, a full version ahead of the Quadro’s 1.2.175, and DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_1).

Release timing underscores the generational gap: the Quadro launched on July 21, 2014, while the RX 560X arrived on April 10, 2018. Both are now end-of-life products, but the Quadro’s predecessor was Quadro Fermi and its successor Quadro Maxwell, while the RX 560X followed Polaris and preceded Vega. The Quadro’s transistor count of 7,080 million dwarfs the RX 560X’s 3,000 million, yet the AMD card achieves comparable overall performance thanks to its superior process node and architecture efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 2.611 TFLOPS on the RX 560X, and this advantage shows in the 11.8% OpenCL benchmark lead.

Q: Does the RX 560X support faster memory?

A: Yes, the RX 560X runs its GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps on the Quadro, though the Quadro’s wider 256-bit bus gives it higher total bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s).

Q: Which card has better Vulkan support?

A: The RX 560X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K5200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, and the RX 560X wins the Vulkan benchmark by 0.3%.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP and needs a 6-pin connector, while the RX 560X has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5, double the 4 GB on the RX 560X, which helps in memory-intensive compute tasks.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro released in 2014 and the RX 560X in 2018.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but conditional recommendation. For compute-heavy professional workloads—OpenCL, scientific computing, rendering—the Quadro K5200 is the superior choice. Its 11.8% OpenCL advantage, backed by 2304 shading units, 8 GB of memory, and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, makes it the right tool for tasks that stress raw parallel processing. The 64th percentile ranking and competition with modern cards like the RX 7900 XTX (1% slower) and GTX 1060 3 GB (1.4% slower) confirm that Kepler still has compute legs.

For modern graphics and gaming, the RX 560X is the better pick. Its 0.3% Vulkan win, full DirectX 12 (12_0) support, and newer display outputs (DisplayPort 1.4a, HDMI 2.0b) make it more future-proof for contemporary applications. The dramatically lower power draw (75 W vs 150 W), smaller physical footprint, and no external power requirement also make it far easier to install in a wide range of systems.

The overall average scores favor the Quadro (19,602 vs 18,626), and its 64th percentile versus 62nd percentile ranking confirms this. But those aggregate numbers obscure the fundamental difference: the Quadro is a compute specialist, while the RX 560X is a graphics generalist. Users should choose based on their primary workload—compute wins go to NVIDIA, graphics wins go to AMD.