AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only two directly comparable benchmark results between the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT, and the AMD card wins both by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7600 XT scores 92,426 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024, a difference of 79.4 percent in favor of the AMD card. That is not a marginal gap; it represents a fundamental shift in compute throughput between generations.

The Geekbench Vulkan result tells a similar story, though with a somewhat smaller margin. The RX 7600 XT posts 48,366, while the Quadro K5200 manages 20,180. The delta here is 58.3 percent in favor of AMD. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the Quadro K5200's support for Vulkan 1.2.175 is present but its execution resources are clearly outpaced by the newer design. The AMD card's Vulkan score is less than half of its OpenCL score, while the NVIDIA card's Vulkan score is actually slightly higher than its OpenCL score, but neither comparison changes the overall outcome: the RX 7600 XT leads in every shared test.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the Quadro K5200 actually holds a higher aggregate figure. Its average across recorded tests is 19,602, while the RX 7600 XT averages 17,083. This is a curious inversion. The explanation lies in the benchmark suites available for each card. The Quadro K5200 has only two recorded results, both from Geekbench. The RX 7600 XT has ten recorded results, including PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, plus 2D and compute workloads. Those additional workloads pull its average down relative to its strong Geekbench showings. The average benchmark score is therefore not a reliable cross-card comparison metric when the test sets differ so widely.

The percentile rankings place the Quadro K5200 at the 64th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RX 7600 XT sits at the 60th percentile. Again, this is a consequence of the differing test coverage. The Quadro's two high Geekbench scores lift its percentile, while the RX 7600 XT's broader workload spread includes some lower DirectX scores. DirectX 9 and 10 results on the AMD card are 228 and 85 respectively, which are low absolute numbers and drag down its standing relative to the full GPU population.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT. Its FP32 throughput is 22.57 TFLOPS, compared to the Quadro K5200's 3.553 TFLOPS. This is a more than sixfold advantage in raw floating-point performance.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 win any benchmark against the RX 7600 XT?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7600 XT wins both. The database shows zero wins for the Quadro K5200 and two wins for the AMD card.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The RX 7600 XT has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 128-bit bus using GDDR6 memory. The Quadro K5200 has 192.3 GB/s across a 256-bit bus using GDDR5. Despite the narrower bus, the AMD card delivers roughly 50 percent more bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RX 7600 XT packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding 65.2M transistors per mm². The Quadro K5200 has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, which works out to 12.6M per mm². The AMD chip is over five times denser.

Q: Which card is newer?

A: The RX 7600 XT was released on January 23, 2024, and is listed as Active in production. The Quadro K5200 was released on July 21, 2014, and is End-of-life. That is roughly a decade of separation between the two designs.

Q: What is the frame rate potential in DirectX 12 titles?

A: The RX 7600 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and scores 65 in PassMark DirectX 12. The Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), an older feature level, and has no recorded DirectX 12 benchmark in the database. The AMD card also has ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA card has none.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous, and it shows in every measurable way. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on Kepler architecture at a 28 nm process node from TSMC. The RX 7600 XT uses the Navi 33 chip, built on RDNA 3.0 architecture at a 6 nm process node, also from TSMC. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 6 nm is the single largest factor in the performance difference, as it allows the AMD chip to pack far more transistors into a much smaller area.

The transistor counts tell the story clearly. The Quadro has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The RX 7600 XT has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. That means the AMD chip has nearly double the transistor count in less than half the die area. The transistor density figures confirm this: 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 65.2M per mm² for AMD. The architectural efficiency gain is not incremental; it is transformative.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 7600 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD card achieves higher bandwidth (288.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s) despite the narrower bus, thanks to the higher memory clock of 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed versus 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective on the NVIDIA card.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The RX 7600 XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The AMD card has fewer shading units but far higher clocks: 1980 MHz base and 2755 MHz boost versus 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost on NVIDIA. The clock advantage more than compensates for the shading unit deficit. The AMD card also includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro.

The FP32 throughput figures reflect the cumulative effect of clocks and architecture. The RX 7600 XT delivers 22.57 TFLOPS, while the Quadro delivers 3.553 TFLOPS. The AMD card also supports FP16 at 22.57 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel rate and texture rate follow the same pattern: 176.3 GPixel/s and 352.6 GTexel/s for AMD, versus 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

API support differs as well. The RX 7600 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card also offers HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the Quadro is limited to 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 on AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on NVIDIA. The newer PCIe standard provides more bandwidth per lane, though the x8 width on AMD is a deliberate trade-off.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT wins both head-to-head tests against the NVIDIA Quadro K5200, with massive margins in OpenCL (79.4 percent) and Vulkan (58.3 percent). The Quadro K5200 records zero wins in the database. Any use case that relies on compute performance, graphics rendering, or modern API support should choose the RX 7600 XT.

The Quadro K5200's only advantages are its higher percentile ranking (64th versus 60th) and its higher average benchmark score (19,602 versus 17,083). However, these figures are artifacts of the limited test set available for the NVIDIA card. The Quadro has only two recorded benchmarks, both from Geekbench, where it scores consistently in the 19,000 to 20,000 range. The RX 7600 XT's average is dragged down by its PassMark DirectX 9 and 10 scores, which are low absolute numbers but represent legacy workload compatibility rather than modern performance.

For users running modern DirectX 12 titles, the RX 7600 XT is the clear choice. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with ray tracing, has 16 GB of memory, and delivers over six times the FP32 compute of the Quadro. The Quadro K5200, being end-of-life since its 2014 release, cannot keep pace in any measured workload. The data does not support any scenario where the Quadro is the recommended purchase, except perhaps for legacy driver compatibility in specific professional applications that predate the modern API landscape.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards in the database:

• Chip: GK110B (NVIDIA) versus Navi 33 (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler versus RDNA 3.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler (Kx200) versus Navi III (RX 7000)
• Process node: 28 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 7,080 million versus 13,300 million
• Die size: 561 mm² versus 204 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.6M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm²
• Base clock: 667 MHz versus 1980 MHz
• Boost clock: 771 MHz versus 2755 MHz
• Game clock: Not specified versus 2470 MHz
• Memory clock: 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective versus 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 8 GB versus 16 GB
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 2304 versus 2048
• TMUs: 192 versus 128
• ROPs: 48 versus 64
• Ray tracing cores: None versus 32
• Pixel rate: 37.01 GPixel/s versus 176.3 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 148.0 GTexel/s versus 352.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.553 TFLOPS versus 22.57 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not specified versus 22.57 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 150 W versus 190 W
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 1x 8-pin
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus 1.4
• Length: 267 mm versus 204 mm
• Height: 111 mm versus 115 mm
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release date: July 21, 2014 versus January 23, 2024

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 XT wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, so the use-case split is straightforward. For OpenCL compute workloads, the AMD card delivers 92,426 versus 19,024, a 79.4 percent advantage. This covers general-purpose GPU computing, including scientific simulation, image processing, and machine learning inference tasks that rely on OpenCL. The sixfold FP32 advantage means any workload that scales with raw shader throughput will favor the AMD card by a wide margin.

For Vulkan-based applications, the RX 7600 XT leads with 48,366 versus 20,180, a 58.3 percent advantage. Vulkan is increasingly used in game engines and cross-platform graphics applications, so this gap directly translates to better frame rates and smoother rendering in modern titles. The AMD card's ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a capability the Quadro simply does not possess.

Memory-intensive workloads favor the RX 7600 XT due to its 16 GB capacity and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro's 8 GB and 192.3 GB/s are sufficient for its era but are limiting factors for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The AMD card also supports newer display outputs, with HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1, enabling higher refresh rates and resolutions on modern monitors.

The Quadro K5200's only theoretical advantages are its higher percentile rank and its higher average score, both artifacts of its limited benchmark coverage. There is no recorded workload where the Quadro outperforms the RX 7600 XT. For users seeking legacy compatibility with the DirectX 11-era API set, the Quadro supports OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12 (11_1), but the AMD card supports OpenGL 4.6 and a more advanced DirectX 12 feature level. The Quadro's 150 W TDP is lower than the AMD card's 190 W, and its dual-slot design with a 6-pin connector may fit in older systems, but the suggested PSU is identical at 450 W for both cards.

In short, the database shows no scenario where the Quadro K5200 is the better choice. The RX 7600 XT wins on compute, graphics, memory, API support, and connectivity. The Quadro is a relic of the Kepler era, and the performance gap is exactly what a decade of architectural evolution should produce.