AMD Radeon RX 5700 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5700 records an average benchmark score of 22,170, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 records 19,602. This places the RX 5700 at the 67th percentile of all GPUs and the K5200 at the 64th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5700 scores 69,603 versus the K5200's 19,024, a 265.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 5700 scores 64,166 versus 20,180, a 218% advantage. The RX 5700 wins both head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: The RX 5700's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6700S (0.1% higher average score), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (1.2% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB (1.4% lower), and AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT (1.7% higher). The K5200's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 (0.2% higher), AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (0.8% higher), AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (1% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (1.4% lower).

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: Both cards have 8 GB of memory on a 256-bit bus. The RX 5700 uses GDDR6 with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the K5200 uses GDDR5 with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more texture mapping units and which has more render output units?

A: The K5200 has 192 TMUs compared to the RX 5700's 144 TMUs. The RX 5700 has 64 ROPs compared to the K5200's 48 ROPs.

Q: What process nodes are used by each GPU?

A: The RX 5700 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. The K5200 is built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 5700 is the superior performer in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. It wins both shared tests by massive margins, 265.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and 218% in Geekbench Vulkan. The average benchmark score difference, 22,170 versus 19,602, confirms that this is not a close contest. The RX 5700 also sits at a higher percentile ranking, 67th versus 64th, and its nearest rivals include newer cards like the Radeon RX 6700S and GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile, whereas the K5200 competes with older workstation and midrange parts.

Who should pick the RX 5700? Any user prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, and higher memory bandwidth. The 7 nm RDNA 1.0 architecture delivers more than double the FP32 throughput, 7.949 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS, and nearly double the pixel rate, 110.4 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s. The card also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4, all of which are newer than the K5200's PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Who should pick the K5200? The case is narrow. It has more TMUs, 192 versus 144, which can benefit certain texture-heavy workloads. It also draws less power, 150 W versus 180 W, and requires only a single 6-pin connector instead of a 6-pin plus 8-pin. For legacy display connectivity, the K5200 offers 2x DVI outputs alongside 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the RX 5700 provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. If a system relies on DVI monitors or has a power supply with only one 6-pin connector, the K5200 is the practical choice. Otherwise, the benchmark data overwhelmingly favors the RX 5700.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes exactly two shared benchmarks, and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5700 posts 69,603 points against the K5200's 19,024 points. The delta is 265.9%, meaning the RX 5700 scores nearly three times higher. This test exercises general-purpose compute across the GPU, and the gap reflects the architectural leap from Kepler to RDNA 1.0.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 5700 scores 64,166 versus the K5200's 20,180. The delta is 218%. Vulkan is a modern low-level graphics API, and the RX 5700's support for Vulkan 1.4, combined with its higher clock speeds, gives it a decisive edge. The K5200's Vulkan support stops at 1.2.175, and its boost clock of 771 MHz is less than half the RX 5700's boost of 1725 MHz.

The wins tally is 2 for the RX 5700 and 0 for the K5200. There are no benchmark categories where the K5200 records a higher score. Even in texture throughput, where the K5200 has more TMUs, the RX 5700's texture rate of 248.4 GTexel/s exceeds the K5200's 148.0 GTexel/s because the RX 5700's higher clock speed compensates for fewer TMUs. Similarly, the RX 5700's pixel rate of 110.4 GPixel/s dwarfs the K5200's 37.01 GPixel/s, despite the K5200 having fewer ROPs.

The average benchmark score comparison reinforces the head-to-head results. The RX 5700's average of 22,170 is 13.1% higher than the K5200's 19,602. The RX 5700's nearest rivals, such as the Radeon RX 6700S at 22,154 and the GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile at 22,435, are within a few percent, showing the RX 5700 holds its own against much newer mobile GPUs. The K5200's nearest rivals, including the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 and the Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765, are similarly close, but they are mostly older or lower-tier parts.

Specification Differences

Memory capacity is identical: both cards have 8 GB. The bus width is also the same at 256 bit. The differences begin with memory type and bandwidth. The RX 5700 uses GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, delivering 448.0 GB/s. The K5200 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, delivering 192.3 GB/s. That is a 255.7 GB/s bandwidth deficit for the K5200.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The RX 5700 has a base clock of 1465 MHz, a game clock of 1625 MHz, and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. The K5200 has a base clock of 667 MHz and a boost clock of 771 MHz. There is no game clock listed for the K5200. The RX 5700's memory clock is listed as 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the K5200's is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Shading units are equal at 2304 for both. TMUs differ: the RX 5700 has 144, the K5200 has 192. ROPs differ in the opposite direction: the RX 5700 has 64, the K5200 has 48. The pixel rate is 110.4 GPixel/s for the RX 5700 and 37.01 GPixel/s for the K5200. The texture rate is 248.4 GTexel/s for the RX 5700 and 148.0 GTexel/s for the K5200. FP32 compute is 7.949 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS. The RX 5700 lists FP16 at 15.90 TFLOPS (2:1); the K5200 has no FP16 figure.

Power draw and connectors differ. The RX 5700 has a TDP of 180 W and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The K5200 has a TDP of 150 W and requires only 1x 6-pin. Both cards recommend a 450 W power supply. Both are dual-slot, and their dimensions are nearly identical: the RX 5700 is 268 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 36 mm wide; the K5200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with no width listed.

Bus interfaces differ. The RX 5700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16; the K5200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the RX 5700 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a; the K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The RX 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4; the K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The RX 5700 is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture using the Navi 10 chip, part of the Radeon RX 5000 series and the Navi (RX 5000) generation. The K5200 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK110B chip, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. The RX 5700 uses a 7 nm TSMC process with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The K5200 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6M per mm². The RX 5700 crams more than three times the transistors per area.

The RX 5700 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, same as the K5200. Neither card includes dedicated hardware for ray tracing or AI tensor operations. The RX 5700 does support FP16 compute at 2:1 ratio, while the K5200 has no FP16 figure listed. This indicates the RX 5700 can handle half-precision workloads at double speed, useful for certain compute tasks.

The RX 5700's predecessor is listed as Vega and its successor as Navi II. The K5200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The RX 5700 was released on 2019-07-06, the K5200 on 2014-07-21. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 5700 has a launch MSRP of 349 USD; the K5200 has no launch MSRP listed.

Clock architecture also differs. The RX 5700 has a dedicated game clock of 1625 MHz, a feature not present on the K5200. The K5200's base and boost clocks are 667 MHz and 771 MHz respectively, less than half the RX 5700's. This clock disparity is the primary reason the RX 5700 achieves much higher pixel and texture rates despite having fewer TMUs and more ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 wins in every measured benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 265.9%. In Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 218%. The RX 5700 also wins on theoretical throughput metrics: FP32 compute is 7.949 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS, pixel rate is 110.4 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 248.4 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 448.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. The RX 5700 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, newer DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4, all of which favor modern workloads.

Use cases for the RX 5700 include any compute-heavy application where OpenCL or Vulkan performance matters. The 265.9% OpenCL lead means tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference will finish far faster on the RX 5700. The 218% Vulkan lead means modern games and VR applications will run at significantly higher frame rates. The higher FP32 throughput also benefits general-purpose compute that does not rely on specialized tensor cores.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins in a few specific areas, though not in raw benchmark scores. It has more TMUs, 192 versus 144, which can be advantageous in workloads that are heavily texture-bound, though its lower clock speed limits the practical benefit. It draws less power, 150 W versus 180 W, making it easier to cool and power. It requires only a single 6-pin power connector, so it can be installed in systems without 8-pin PCIe power. It also offers 2x DVI outputs, which is useful for legacy monitors that lack DisplayPort or HDMI. The K5200's OpenGL support is also 4.6, matching the RX 5700.

The K5200's nearest rival data shows it competes with cards like the AMD FirePro D300 and Radeon RX 6650 XT, all within 1% of each other. This suggests the K5200 is a capable workstation GPU for its era, but the RX 5700 belongs to a different performance tier. The RX 5700's nearest rivals include the Radeon RX 6700S and GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile, which are much newer and generally faster parts. The 13.1% average score gap between the two cards is substantial and consistent across all recorded tests.

For any user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on the K5200's power and display connectivity advantages versus the RX 5700's overwhelming performance lead. The RX 5700 is the clear recommendation for anyone who needs speed, modern API support, or high memory bandwidth. The K5200 is only preferable in niche cases involving DVI monitors, limited power connectors, or a strict 150 W power budget.