AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The data paints a starkly one-sided picture: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins both head-to-head benchmarks outright, leaving the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 with zero wins. The most dramatic gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Radeon RX 6500M scores 43,837 against the Quadro K2200's 10,090 — a 77% advantage. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational chasm.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon RX 6500M again dominates, posting 38,586 versus 11,431, a 70.4% lead. The Quadro K2200's strongest showing comes in Vulkan relative to its own OpenCL score, but even that relative strength does not translate into competitiveness against the newer part. For any workload that leverages compute or modern graphics APIs, the RX 6500M is the clear choice.

The Quadro K2200's only consolation is that it occupies the 49th percentile of all GPUs, one point above the RX 6500M's 48th percentile. This slight percentile edge, however, belies the benchmark reality: the RX 6500M's average benchmark score of 10,362 trails the Quadro's 10,761 by only 3.7%, but the two available head-to-head tests show the AMD part winning by margins that dwarf that average gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 averages 10,761 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon RX 6500M averages 10,362. The Quadro leads by 399 points, or approximately 3.7%.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon RX 6500M in Vulkan workloads?

A: The RX 6500M scores 43,837 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 10,090 for the Quadro K2200. That is a 77% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Quadro K2200 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the RX 6500M winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests, with the Quadro recording zero wins.

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M packs 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 achieves 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD part's density is roughly four times higher.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M delivers 76.80 GPixel/s, far exceeding the Quadro K2200's 17.98 GPixel/s. That is more than a 4x difference in pixel throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a newer and more feature-complete specification.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586, which is 27,155 points higher than the Quadro K2200's 11,431. The delta percentage of -70.4% indicates the Quadro trails by that margin relative to the AMD part. This is not a close race; the RX 6500M delivers over three times the OpenCL performance.

Geekbench Vulkan shows an even wider chasm. The RX 6500M posts 43,837, against the Quadro's 10,090, for a 77% deficit for the NVIDIA card. In absolute terms, the AMD part scores 33,747 points higher. This suggests the RX 6500M's architecture is far better suited to modern low-level graphics APIs, which are increasingly common in both gaming and professional visualization workloads.

The average benchmark scores soften the picture slightly. The Quadro K2200's 10,761 average is 399 points above the RX 6500M's 10,362. This discrepancy between the average and the head-to-head results likely stems from the Quadro having only two recorded benchmarks, both of which are relatively lower compared to its average, while the RX 6500M has nine recorded benchmarks including some that score below its average.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context: the Quadro K2200 sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) and 1.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883). The RX 6500M, meanwhile, is within 2.1% of the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582) and 1.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481). Both GPUs inhabit a similar performance tier when averaged across all benchmarks, but the head-to-head data reveals the RX 6500M's strengths are concentrated in exactly the tests that matter most for modern workloads.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Quadro K2200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500M also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 144.0 GB/s — 79.6% more bandwidth despite half the bus width. The AMD part compensates for its narrower interface with much faster memory clocks: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Quadro K2200 runs at a 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the RX 6500M operates at 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2191 MHz. The AMD part's base clock nearly doubles the NVIDIA card's boost clock.

Compute resources are also lopsided. The RX 6500M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the Quadro K2200's 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part doubles the ROP count and offers 60% more shading units. The RX 6500M also includes 16 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The Quadro K2200 has a 68 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the RX 6500M has a lower 50 W TDP and lists no suggested PSU. The Quadro is a single-slot card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the RX 6500M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent outputs. The Quadro measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the RX 6500M has no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. Its generation is listed as "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)," though the architecture is Maxwell, suggesting a transitional product.

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0, built on a dramatically more advanced 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 5,400 million transistors in a 107 mm² die, achieving 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a fourfold improvement in density, enabled by the smaller process node.

The compute capabilities reflect these architectural differences. The Quadro K2200 delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and has no listed FP16 capability. The RX 6500M offers 4.915 TFLOPS of FP32 and 9.830 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), more than tripling single-precision throughput and adding half-precision support. Texture and pixel rates follow suit: the RX 6500M hits 153.6 GTexel/s and 76.80 GPixel/s, versus the Quadro's 44.96 GTexel/s and 17.98 GPixel/s.

API support also differs. The Quadro K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part's DirectX 12 Ultimate designation includes features like ray tracing, which is reflected in its 16 dedicated RT cores. The Quadro has no ray tracing hardware.

Bus interface is another differentiator. The Quadro K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Although the AMD part has fewer lanes, the newer PCIe 4.0 standard provides substantially more bandwidth per lane. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell; the RX 6500M's predecessor is Polaris Mobile and it has no successor listed. Release dates are far apart: the Quadro launched on 2014-07-21, and the RX 6500M on 2022-01-03. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data is decisive. Anyone choosing between these two for modern compute or graphics workloads should select the AMD Radeon RX 6500M. Its 77% lead in Geekbench Vulkan and 70.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL are overwhelming. The RX 6500M also offers superior memory bandwidth (144.0 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), more shading units (1024 vs 640), double the ROPs (32 vs 16), ray tracing support, and nearly three times the FP32 throughput (4.915 TFLOPS vs 1,438.7 GFLOPS). Its 50 W TDP is lower than the Quadro's 68 W, making it more power-efficient as well.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200's only statistical advantage is its 49th percentile ranking versus the RX 6500M's 48th, and its slightly higher average benchmark score of 10,761 versus 10,362. But the average includes a broader set of tests for the RX 6500M, and the head-to-head results — the only direct comparisons available — favor AMD by massive margins.

For professional users who specifically need a single-slot card with DVI output and PCIe 2.0 x16 compatibility, the Quadro K2200 remains a functional option. Its 202 mm length and 111 mm height make it suitable for compact workstations. However, these are niche requirements. For general-purpose GPU compute, modern API support, or any workload that benefits from ray tracing, the RX 6500M is the superior choice in every measurable way. The verdict is clear: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M wins this matchup decisively.