AMD Radeon RX 560X vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along compute and graphics workloads. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins both head-to-head tests, and the margin is substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 against the AMD Radeon RX 560X’s 17,020, a 364.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is nearly identical in proportional terms: 92,309 versus 20,231, a 356.3% lead.

This is not a close contest. The Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation-class card aimed at professional compute, while the RX 560X sits in the entry-level segment. The data shows that every benchmark win belongs to the NVIDIA part. The AMD card has no recorded victories in the head-to-head comparison.

However, the percentile rankings tell a more nuanced story. The Quadro RTX 5000 sits at the 67th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 560X is at the 62nd percentile. That is a surprisingly small gap in overall standing, given the massive score difference. The explanation lies in the average benchmark scores: the Quadro RTX 5000 averages 21,629 across all its recorded tests, while the RX 560X averages 18,626. The Quadro’s average is dragged down by weak DirectX results (a Passmark DirectX 12 score of 59, for example), while its compute and Vulkan numbers are far above the RX 560X’s.

So the use-case split is clear. For raw compute workloads, OpenCL and Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 5000 dominates. For legacy DirectX 9/10/11 scenarios, the RX 560X may actually be the more balanced card, though the database only records two benchmarks for the AMD part, making direct comparisons in those tests impossible.

The Verdict

Who should pick which, strictly from the data? The answer depends entirely on the workload.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the choice for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks. Its 364.2% lead in OpenCL and 356.3% lead in Vulkan are not incremental improvements; they are orders of magnitude. The card also offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 4 GB of GDDR5, a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, and 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s. For professionals rendering, simulating, or running machine learning inference, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the only rational pick.

The AMD Radeon RX 560X is the choice for a different scenario entirely: basic graphics output, low-power systems, and legacy API compatibility. It draws 75 W versus the Quadro’s 230 W, requires no auxiliary power connectors, and runs on a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The Quadro needs a 550 W power supply and a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector. The RX 560X’s suggested PSU is 250 W. For a compact, low-power build that does not need heavy compute, the RX 560X is the pragmatic pick.

But the data does not support the RX 560X in any compute-heavy role. Its 2.611 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is a fraction of the Quadro’s 11.15 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 20.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 81.60 GTexel/s are similarly dwarfed by the Quadro’s 116.2 GPixel/s and 348.5 GTexel/s. The verdict is unambiguous: the Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior compute card, and the RX 560X is only suitable for light, low-power duties.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests are both Geekbench workloads, and both go to the NVIDIA card by massive margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999. The RX 560X scores 17,020. The delta is 364.2%. To put that in context, the Quadro’s nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, which averages 21,856, just 1% below the Quadro’s average. The Quadro’s OpenCL score is nearly four times that of its average across all tests, indicating that OpenCL is a particularly strong workload for this card. The RX 560X’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT, averages 18,685, which is only 0.3% below the RX 560X’s average. The RX 560X’s OpenCL score of 17,020 is actually below its own average, meaning OpenCL is a weak point for the AMD card.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the pattern repeats. The Quadro scores 92,309, versus 20,231 for the RX 560X, a 356.3% delta. The Quadro’s Vulkan score is even higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that Vulkan is the stronger API for this Turing-based card. The RX 560X’s Vulkan score, at 20,231, is slightly above its OpenCL score but still less than a quarter of the Quadro’s result.

What does this imply? The Quadro RTX 5000’s architecture, with 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, is built for parallel compute. The RX 560X, with no RT or tensor cores, relies on its 1,024 shading units alone. The delta percentages are so large that they suggest a fundamental architectural gap, not just a clock speed or memory bandwidth difference.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 averages 21,629 across all recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon RX 560X averages 18,626. The Quadro leads by roughly 16% in average score.

Q: How does the Quadro RTX 5000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, which averages 21,856, a 1% difference. The RTX A4000 Mobile averages 21,379, 1.2% below the Quadro. The AMD Radeon HD 8970M and RX Vega M GL trail by 1.8% and 2.3% respectively.

Q: What about the RX 560X’s nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT averages 18,685, just 0.3% below the RX 560X. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 averages 18,789, 0.9% above. The AMD FirePro D500 and NVIDIA Tesla K80 are within 1.3% of the RX 560X’s average.

Q: Does the RX 560X win any benchmark?

A: No. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins both: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 560X has zero wins in the comparison.

Q: What is the memory difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has four times the capacity and four times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better legacy API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro also has newer API versions overall.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on a 12 nm process from TSMC, built on the Turing architecture. It packs 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The AMD Radeon RX 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, built on the GCN 4.0 architecture. It has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4 million per mm².

The transistor density is nearly identical, which is remarkable given the age difference and process node difference. But the scale is vastly different. The Quadro has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The RX 560X has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The Quadro also includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, which the RX 560X lacks entirely. These specialized cores are the primary reason for the Quadro’s massive lead in OpenCL and Vulkan compute.

The memory architectures are also fundamentally different. The Quadro uses GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus, while the RX 560X uses GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate, while the RX 560X’s is 1750 MHz with 7 Gbps effective. This doubles the Quadro’s bandwidth to 448.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

The FP16 capability is another major divide. The Quadro achieves 22.30 TFLOPS of FP16 performance via a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 560X manages only 2.611 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This suggests the Quadro is designed for mixed-precision workloads, common in AI and scientific computing, while the RX 560X is not.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every measurable field. Here are the differences:

• Process node: 12 nm (Quadro) versus 14 nm (RX 560X)
• Foundry: TSMC versus GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 13,600 million versus 3,000 million
• Die size: 545 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Base clock: 1620 MHz versus 1175 MHz
• Boost clock: 1815 MHz versus 1275 MHz
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory bus: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 448.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 3072 versus 1024
• TMUs: 192 versus 64
• ROPs: 64 versus 16
• RT cores: 48 versus null
• Tensor cores: 384 versus null
• Pixel rate: 116.2 GPixel/s versus 20.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 348.5 GTexel/s versus 81.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 11.15 TFLOPS versus 2.611 TFLOPS
• FP16: 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 230 W versus 75 W
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 267 mm length versus 170 mm length

The RX 560X is physically smaller and far less power-hungry, making it suitable for compact systems with modest power supplies. The Quadro RTX 5000 is a dual-slot card requiring a 550 W PSU and external power, reflecting its workstation-class positioning. The Quadro also supports more display outputs and newer API versions, cementing its role as a professional tool.