AMD Radeon RX 7600S vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the AMD Radeon RX 7600S in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 68,012 points against the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 19,024 points, a delta of -72% from the AMD side, meaning the Quadro trails by roughly three and a half times. The gap is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan: the RX 7600S posts 73,868 points, while the Quadro K5200 manages 20,180 points, a -72.7% delta. Both wins belong to AMD, and the margin is consistent across the two APIs.

These are not close calls. The Quadro K5200’s average benchmark score sits at 19,602, placing it in the 64th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX 7600S averages 16,696, which lands it in the 60th percentile. That is a curious inversion: the older Quadro has a higher overall percentile despite losing both head-to-head tests. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix. The RX 7600S runs many more tests, including PassMark suites and 3DMark Steel Nomad, where its scores are far lower relative to its OpenCL and Vulkan results. For instance, the RX 7600S scores 15,408 in PassMark G3D, 6,520 in GPU Compute, and only 1,888 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Those drag down its average, while the Quadro only has two recorded results, both strong enough to keep its percentile respectable.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous, though. If you only look at the tests both cards took, the RX 7600S is faster by a factor of 3.6 in OpenCL and 3.7 in Vulkan. The delta percentages are negative because the comparison is framed from the AMD card’s perspective; the Quadro’s scores are 72% lower than the RX 7600S in both cases. No benchmark in the shared set favors the Quadro, and the wins column reflects that: zero for the NVIDIA card, two for the AMD card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600S wins with a score of 68,012 against the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 19,024. The Quadro is 72% slower in this test.

Q: Is the Vulkan result similar to OpenCL?

A: Yes. The RX 7600S scores 73,868 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro K5200 scores 20,180. The delta is -72.7%, so the NVIDIA card trails by nearly the same margin as in OpenCL.

Q: Why does the Quadro K5200 have a higher percentile rank than the RX 7600S?

A: The Quadro sits at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 7600S is at the 60th. The database average scores differ: 19,602 for the Quadro versus 16,696 for the RX 7600S. This happens because the RX 7600S has additional benchmark results (PassMark, 3DMark) that are lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, pulling its average down.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each card have in the head-to-head set?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600S wins 2 out of 2 shared tests. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins 0.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro K5200 in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has an average score of 19,637, which is 0.2% higher than the Quadro’s 19,602. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB is 1.4% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is 1% higher.

Q: What is the closest rival to the RX 7600S?

A: The NVIDIA T400 4 GB scores 16,792, which is 0.6% higher than the RX 7600S’s 16,696. The NVIDIA T400 is 1.1% higher, and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 is 1.4% higher.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design eras. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, a Kepler architecture part built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 7600S uses the Navi 33 chip, based on RDNA 3.0, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 6 nm node. It holds 13,300 million transistors on a much smaller 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

That density difference is stark. The RX 7600S fits nearly twice as many transistors into less than half the silicon area. The architectural gap is just as wide. Kepler is a 2014-era design with a scalar core layout, while RDNA 3.0 introduces a chiplet-like approach for some products, but here it is a monolithic mobile die. The RX 7600S includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. The Quadro has no RT cores and no tensor cores, while the RX 7600S also has no tensor cores but does have dedicated hardware for ray tracing.

The shading resources differ in kind, not just count. The Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The RX 7600S has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Fewer shaders but more ROPs suggests a design tuned for throughput per clock rather than raw parallel width. The RX 7600S also supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, delivering 31.54 TFLOPS, while the Quadro does not list an FP16 figure.

Memory architecture is another split. The Quadro uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, over a 256-bit bus, for 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600S uses GDDR6 at 16 Gbps effective, over a 128-bit bus, for 256.0 GB/s. The narrower bus is compensated by much faster memory clocks, resulting in higher total bandwidth. Both cards have 8 GB of frame buffer, but the technology is two generations apart.

Process node and transistor density are the headline differences. The 6 nm node allows the RX 7600S to operate at a 75 W TDP, while the Quadro K5200 is rated at 150 W. That is a 2x power efficiency advantage for AMD, and it comes with a far higher compute throughput: the RX 7600S delivers 15.77 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Quadro’s 3.553 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show few shared fields. The most obvious difference is process node: 28 nm for the Quadro, 6 nm for the RX 7600S. Transistor count is 7,080 million versus 13,300 million. Die size is 561 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm².

Clocks are dramatically different. The Quadro runs at a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, with memory at 1502 MHz or 6 Gbps effective. The RX 7600S has a 1500 MHz base, 2200 MHz boost, and a game clock of 1865 MHz. Memory runs at 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective.

Memory bus width is 256-bit for the Quadro and 128-bit for the RX 7600S. Bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Both have 8 GB of memory, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 and the RX 7600S uses GDDR6.

Compute resources: the Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RX 7600S has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 7600S adds 28 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 37.01 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 140.8 GPixel/s for the RX 7600S. Texture rate is 148.0 GTexel/s versus 246.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.553 TFLOPS versus 15.77 TFLOPS. The RX 7600S also lists FP16 at 31.54 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs differ completely. The Quadro has a 150 W TDP, a dual-slot design, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 450 W suggested PSU. It is 267 mm long and 111 mm high. The RX 7600S has a 75 W TDP, is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, and has no listed dimensions. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the RX 7600S uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Display outputs: the Quadro has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The RX 7600S is listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning outputs vary by laptop design. API support: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 7600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates are far apart: July 2014 for the Quadro, January 2023 for the RX 7600S. The Quadro is end-of-life, while the RX 7600S is active. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The RX 7600S’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile and it has no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 7600S is the faster GPU in every shared benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests by margins of roughly 72%, and it does so while consuming half the power (75 W versus 150 W). The Quadro K5200 may hold a higher percentile rank in the overall database, but that is an artifact of having only two strong scores. In direct comparison, the RX 7600S is not just ahead; it is in a different performance class.

For compute-heavy workloads using OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 7600S is the obvious pick. Its 15.77 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than four times the Quadro’s 3.553 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is also higher at 256.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. The RX 7600S adds ray tracing support, which the Quadro cannot do at all. The only area where the Quadro looks better is that its two benchmark scores are more consistent, and it has a higher average score per test, but that is a statistical quirk, not a performance advantage.

The Quadro K5200 is a 2014 workstation part that was already end-of-life before the RX 7600S launched. Its 28 nm process and Kepler architecture are outdated. The RX 7600S is a 2023 mobile GPU with a 6 nm process and RDNA 3.0. Buyers looking for modern API support, ray tracing, and high compute throughput should choose AMD. Buyers constrained to legacy workstation software that specifically requires Kepler-era NVIDIA drivers might still consider the Quadro, but the benchmark data does not support it on raw performance grounds.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7600S wins in every measured scenario from the head-to-head set. In OpenCL compute, it beats the Quadro by 48,988 points. In Vulkan, it beats the Quadro by 53,688 points. These are not narrow wins; they are dominant. The RX 7600S also wins on power efficiency, with a 75 W TDP versus 150 W, meaning it delivers higher performance at half the power draw. Its PCIe 4.0 interface is twice the bandwidth of the Quadro’s PCIe 3.0, which matters for data transfer in external GPU enclosures or laptops with modern chipsets.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has no benchmark wins in the shared tests. Its only advantages are structural: it has a wider 256-bit memory bus (though lower bandwidth), a dual-slot desktop form factor with DVI outputs, and a fixed 450 W PSU recommendation that assumes a standalone desktop build. For legacy workstation setups that require DVI monitors and a full-height card, the Quadro fits. Its 2,304 shading units are more numerous than the RX 7600S’s 1,792, but that does not translate into higher throughput in any recorded test.

Use-case splits are therefore simple. Choose the RX 7600S for modern gaming, ray tracing, OpenCL acceleration, Vulkan workloads, and any mobile or low-power system. Choose the Quadro K5200 only if you need a dual-slot, PCIe 3.0, DVI-equipped workstation card for legacy software that predates RDNA 3.0. The data does not show any performance scenario where the Quadro wins, so the decision rests on compatibility, not speed.