AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a perfectly split rivalry between these two cards, with each claiming one decisive victory in the shared benchmark suite. The two tests available for direct comparison, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, expose entirely different performance landscapes.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 posts a score of 19024 against the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT's 9524. That is a 99.7% advantage for the older Kepler-based workstation card. The magnitude of this win is striking, nearly doubling the AMD card's output in a compute-oriented workload. This result runs counter to any assumption that newer architecture automatically dominates older designs in every task.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells the opposite story. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 68310, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 manages only 20180. The delta is -70.5% from the AMD card's perspective, meaning the RX 5700 XT outperforms the K5200 by roughly 3.4 times in this API-specific workload. Vulkan is a modern low-level graphics API, and the data indicates the RDNA 1.0 architecture has a massive advantage in this environment.

Looking at the database's aggregate metrics, the average benchmark score for the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is 19602, placing it at the 64th percentile among all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT averages 16361 across its broader test suite, sitting at the 59th percentile. Interestingly, the K5200's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 (-0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19765 (-0.8%), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX at 19410 (1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB at 19334 (1.4%). The RX 5700 XT's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M at 16351 (0.1%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16408 (-0.3%), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 at 16415 (-0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16504 (-0.9%). These rival clusters show that both cards sit within 1.4% of their respective neighbors, indicating tight competition at their performance tiers.

The head-to-head data reveals a fundamental split: the K5200 excels in OpenCL compute tasks, while the RX 5700 XT dominates in Vulkan graphics workloads. Neither card is universally superior; each leads in the domain where its architecture is strongest.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, spanning five years of semiconductor evolution. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on the Kepler architecture and fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT employs the Navi 10 chip, based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 7 nm process. It contains 10,300 million transistors within a much smaller 251 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 41.0 million per square millimeter. The density difference is roughly 3.3 times in favor of AMD, reflecting the massive lithography advancement.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational progress. The K5200 operates at a base clock of 667 MHz with a boost of 771 MHz. The RX 5700 XT starts at 1605 MHz base, boosts to 1905 MHz, and has a game clock of 1755 MHz. The AMD card's base clock is more than double the NVIDIA card's boost clock, which partially explains its commanding lead in many throughput-bound scenarios.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply as well. The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 running at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus. The RX 5700 XT also has 8 GB, but uses GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), achieving 448.0 GB/s over the same 256-bit bus. That is a 133% bandwidth advantage for AMD, which matters enormously for modern workloads.

Shader configuration differs in structure. The K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The RX 5700 XT has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. While AMD has more shading units and ROPs, NVIDIA has more TMUs. Pixel rate for the K5200 is 37.01 GPixel/s, while the RX 5700 XT reaches 121.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate for the K5200 is 148.0 GTexel/s, versus 304.8 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 compute is 3.553 TFLOPS for the K5200 and 9.754 TFLOPS for the RX 5700 XT, a 2.7 times gap. The AMD card also lists FP16 at 19.51 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card has no FP16 figure in the database.

API support reflects their respective eras. The K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 5700 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer DirectX feature level on the AMD card aligns with its stronger Vulkan showing.

Power and interface differences are notable. The K5200 carries a 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W power supply. The RX 5700 XT draws 225 W, requires a 6-pin plus 8-pin configuration, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The K5200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 5700 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmarks indicate that the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 99.7% lead over the RX 5700 XT in Geekbench OpenCL suggests that Kepler's compute pipeline, optimized for professional and workstation tasks, remains highly capable in certain general-purpose GPU computing scenarios. The K5200's 192 texture units, despite lower clock speeds, contribute to its strong texture rate relative to its FP32 output. This card would likely suit compute-focused users who prioritize OpenCL performance over modern graphics API support.

The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT wins overwhelmingly in Vulkan graphics workloads, as shown by its 68310 score versus 20180, a 70.5% margin from the AMD perspective. Its 64 ROPs, higher pixel rate, and massive memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s) give it clear advantages in rasterization-heavy and bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility position it for contemporary gaming and modern graphics applications.

The data also shows the RX 5700 XT has a much broader benchmark footprint in the database, with recorded results across DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. Its Passmark G3D score of 16277 and GPU compute score of 7650 indicate solid general-purpose performance. The K5200 only has two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench tests, limiting direct comparison scope.

For users whose primary workloads run through OpenCL, the K5200's aggregate score of 19602 versus the RX 5700 XT's 16361 suggests the NVIDIA card holds an aggregate advantage in the database's averages, despite the AMD card's newer architecture. However, this aggregate includes the AMD card's many additional tests, so the comparison is not strictly apples-to-apples.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, drawn directly from the database records:

• Chip: GK110B (NVIDIA) versus Navi 10 (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler versus RDNA 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler (Kx200) versus Navi (RX 5000)
• Process node: 28 nm versus 7 nm
• Transistors: 7,080 million versus 10,300 million
• Die size: 561 mm² versus 251 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.6M / mm² versus 41.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 667 MHz versus 1605 MHz
• Boost clock: 771 MHz versus 1905 MHz
• Game clock: None versus 1755 MHz
• Memory clock: 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective versus 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 2304 versus 2560
• TMUs: 192 versus 160
• ROPs: 48 versus 64
• Pixel rate: 37.01 GPixel/s versus 121.9 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 148.0 GTexel/s versus 304.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.553 TFLOPS versus 9.754 TFLOPS
• FP16: None versus 19.51 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 150 W versus 225 W
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 111 mm height versus 272 mm length, 111 mm height, 36 mm width
• Release date: 2014-07-21 versus 2019-07-06
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi versus Vega
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell versus Navi II

Both cards share 8 GB memory size, 256-bit bus width, dual-slot width, and OpenGL 4.6 support.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 averages 19602 across its recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT averages 16361. The K5200 also holds a higher percentile rank at 64 versus 59.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The K5200 scores 19024 versus the RX 5700 XT's 9524, a 99.7% advantage for NVIDIA in this compute test.

Q: Does the RX 5700 XT outperform the K5200 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan the RX 5700 XT scores 68310 against the K5200's 20180, a 70.5% margin in favor of AMD.

Q: What memory technology does each card use?

A: The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 5700 XT uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The K5200 has a 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and suggests a 450 W power supply. The RX 5700 XT has a 225 W TDP, requires a 6-pin plus 8-pin configuration, and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The RX 5700 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but conditional recommendation. For users whose workloads are dominated by OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is the stronger choice. Its 99.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and higher aggregate average score of 19602 versus 16361 demonstrate that Kepler's compute architecture remains potent even against a much newer GPU. The K5200 also operates at a lower 150 W TDP and requires only a single 6-pin connector, which could simplify system integration in professional environments.

For users prioritizing modern graphics APIs, gaming, or Vulkan-based applications, the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT is unquestionably superior. Its 68310 Geekbench Vulkan score dwarfs the K5200's 20180, and its 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 121.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 9.754 TFLOPS FP32 compute provide a generational leap in raw throughput. The RX 5700 XT also offers newer API support with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, making it more future-proof for evolving software.

The benchmark results indicate that the K5200 wins one test and the RX 5700 XT wins the other, creating a tie in direct comparisons. The deciding factor should be the user's specific application mix. Compute-focused professionals leveraging OpenCL would find the K5200's performance compelling. Gamers or graphics developers working with Vulkan and modern DirectX would benefit far more from the RX 5700 XT. The database's percentile rankings reinforce this split: the K5200 sits at the 64th percentile overall, while the RX 5700 XT sits at the 59th, but these aggregate positions obscure the stark workload-dependent differences revealed in the head-to-head tests.