AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by nearly four years of development and targeting distinct use cases. The data shows the AMD part winning both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the underlying specifications tell a more complex story about what each GPU was designed to accomplish. The Vega M GL is a compact, power-efficient integrated graphics processor built for portable devices, while the Quadro K5200 is a professional dual-slot workstation card with double the memory capacity and a much larger physical footprint.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are clear: the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL wins both available tests, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 19,549 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024, and the Vulkan test with a commanding 22,757 versus 20,180. That gives the AMD part a 2.8% lead in OpenCL and a substantial 12.8% advantage in Vulkan. For compute workloads that leverage Vulkan, the Vega M GL is the clear winner, offering significantly better performance per test result.

However, the Quadro K5200 is not without its strengths. The NVIDIA card carries 8 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the Vega M GL's 4 GB of HBM2, giving it twice the capacity for large datasets. The K5200 also has a higher theoretical pixel rate at 37.01 GPixel/s versus 32.35 GPixel/s, and a much higher texture rate at 148.0 GTexel/s compared to 80.88 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the Quadro would excel in texture-heavy rendering workloads and scenarios requiring large memory buffers, even if the synthetic benchmark scores favor the AMD part.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the narrow overall gap: the Vega M GL averages 21,153 across its benchmarks, while the Quadro K5200 averages 19,602. That is a 7.9% difference in favor of AMD, but the Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 with a delta of -0.2% and the Radeon RX 6650 XT at -0.8%, indicating the K5200 sits in respectable company despite being an older architecture.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses the Polaris 22 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.0M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K5200, in contrast, uses the GK110B chip based on the older Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 7,080 million transistors spread across a much larger 561 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 12.6M per mm².

These process node differences are fundamental. The 14 nm node allows AMD to achieve higher density and better power efficiency, which is reflected in the Vega M GL's 65 W TDP compared to the K5200's 150 W. The AMD part also integrates its memory on-package with HBM2 across a 1024-bit bus, while the K5200 uses discrete GDDR5 chips on a 256-bit bus. Interestingly, the memory bandwidth figures are close — 179.2 GB/s for AMD versus 192.3 GB/s for NVIDIA — despite the radically different implementations.

The compute architectures also differ in their capabilities. The Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the K5200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD GPU also offers FP16 compute at 2.588 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, whereas the Quadro K5200 has no listed FP16 capability. This makes the Vega M GL more flexible for mixed-precision compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a close contest. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 19,549 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024, a delta of 2.8% in AMD's favor. This is a modest margin, suggesting that for general-purpose OpenCL compute, the two GPUs perform at similar levels despite their architectural differences. The Quadro's higher shading unit count — 2,304 versus 1,280 — and greater texture unit count — 192 versus 80 — likely help it stay competitive in this test.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a different story. Here, the AMD part scores 22,757 versus the K5200's 20,180, a decisive 12.8% advantage. This substantial gap likely reflects the more modern architecture's better handling of Vulkan's explicit API model, as well as the Vega M GL's superior feature set in this area. The K5200's older Kepler architecture, with its Vulkan 1.2.175 support compared to the AMD's 1.3, appears to be at a significant disadvantage in this workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Vega M GL's average score of 21,153 places it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5200's 19,602 average puts it at the 64th percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, but the AMD part holds a consistent edge. The Vega M GL's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8970M with a delta of -0.4%, while the K5200's closest competitor is the AMD FirePro D300 at -0.2%, showing both cards are tightly clustered with their peers.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but nuanced conclusion. For users prioritizing modern API support, compute performance in Vulkan, and power efficiency, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is the superior choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, offers newer API versions, and consumes less than half the power of the Quadro K5200 — 65 W versus 150 W. Its compact IGP form factor also makes it suitable for portable devices where space is at a premium.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 remains relevant for specific professional workloads. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory doubles the Vega M GL's 4 GB capacity, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The K5200 also has higher theoretical pixel and texture rates, suggesting it may outperform in pure rasterization throughput despite losing in synthetic compute benchmarks. Its dual-slot design with a 6-pin power connector and 450 W suggested PSU indicates it is built for desktop workstations, not mobile systems.

The choice ultimately depends on the workload. Compute-heavy tasks leveraging Vulkan will favor the Vega M GL, while memory-intensive professional rendering with large assets may benefit from the K5200's larger frame buffer. The benchmark data shows the AMD part winning, but the specification sheet reveals why the Quadro still has a place in certain professional environments.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has an average benchmark score of 21,153, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 averages 19,602. This places the AMD part in the 66th percentile of all GPUs and the NVIDIA card in the 64th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the AMD part in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL scores 22,757 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 12.8% higher than the Quadro K5200's 20,180. This is the largest performance gap between the two GPUs in any benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and what type?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL's 4 GB of HBM2. However, the memory bandwidth is similar, with the K5200 at 192.3 GB/s and the Vega M GL at 179.2 GB/s.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has a TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W. The AMD part is an IGP with no power connectors, whereas the K5200 is a dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part also offers FP16 compute at 2.588 TFLOPS, which the K5200 lacks.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 was released on 2014-07-21, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL came later on 2018-01-31. Both are now classified as end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |

|---------------|------------------------|---------------------|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 931 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1011 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 1024 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 80 | 192 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.35 GPixel/s | 37.01 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.88 GTexel/s | 148.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.588 TFLOPS | 3.553 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 65 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | null | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | null | 267 mm (10.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2018-01-31 | 2014-07-21 |