AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and AMD Radeon Vega 8 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by roughly five years of silicon evolution. The data shows a fascinating split: each card claims victory in one of the two shared benchmark tests, yet their underlying architectures and specifications could hardly be more divergent. The Quadro K5100M, a 2013-era professional mobile GPU built on 28 nm Kepler silicon, squares off against the 2018-era integrated Vega 8 IGP on 14 nm GCN 5.0. This is not a simple generational comparison, but a study in how raw compute resources versus architectural efficiency play out in real-world workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their head-to-head benchmark results precisely down the middle. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 scores 10,706, which is 22.3% higher than the Quadro K5100M's 8,315. This is a substantial margin, suggesting the Vega 8's architecture handles Apple's Metal API significantly better, likely due to its newer GCN 5.0 design with support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, compared to the Quadro's older DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Vega 8's advantage in this test is not marginal; it is a clear generational leap in API efficiency.

Conversely, the Quadro K5100M dominates in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 11,771 against the Vega 8's 8,822. That is a 33.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a massive reversal of fortune. This delta is far larger than the Metal gap, indicating that the Quadro's raw compute hardware—specifically its 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units—provides a substantial advantage in OpenCL workloads that scale well with parallel shader count. The Vega 8's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs simply cannot match that level of parallel throughput, despite its higher clock speeds.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Quadro K5100M holds a narrow edge overall. Its average score of 10,043 places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 8's 9,221 average puts it in the 45th percentile. The Quadro's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375, scores 10,070, a mere 0.3% difference, while the Vega 8 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon 890M (9,210). The data suggests that while the Vega 8 wins in Metal, the OpenCL gap is large enough to give the Quadro the higher aggregate performance, but the overall picture is one of near-total parity in average terms.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a higher average benchmark score of 10,043, compared to the AMD Radeon Vega 8's 9,221. This places the Quadro in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 8 sits in the 45th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance difference in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 wins Geekbench Metal with a score of 10,706, which is 22.3% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's 8,315.

Q: What is the margin of victory for the Quadro in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins Geekbench OpenCL by a significant 33.4%, scoring 11,771 versus the AMD Radeon Vega 8's 8,822.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 has a higher transistor count at 4,940 million, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's 3,540 million. However, the Quadro has a larger die size at 294 mm² versus the Vega 8's 210 mm².

Q: What are the peak FP32 performance figures for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8 offers 1,126.4 GFLOPS, which is roughly 1.126 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has a dedicated memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon Vega 8's bandwidth is "System Dependent" as it uses shared system memory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two is stark. The Quadro K5100M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². In contrast, the Vega 8 uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture with the Raven chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Despite having more transistors (4,940 million), the Vega 8's die is smaller at 210 mm², resulting in a much higher transistor density of 23.5 million per mm².

The compute resources diverge dramatically. The Quadro K5100M field 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Vega 8 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 3:1 ratio in shading units and 4:1 in TMUs explains the Quadro's OpenCL dominance. However, the Vega 8 counters with significantly higher clock speeds: its boost clock is 1,100 MHz versus the Quadro's fixed 771 MHz. The Vega 8 also supports FP16 computation at 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the Quadro lacks entirely.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 uses "System Shared" memory with a "System Dependent" bandwidth, meaning its performance is tied to the host system's RAM. The Vega 8 also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal clear divergences in nearly every category. The process node differs: the Quadro uses 28 nm (TSMC) while the Vega 8 uses 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistor counts are 3,540 million versus 4,940 million, with die sizes of 294 mm² versus 210 mm². The Quadro's transistor density is 12.0M/mm², while the Vega 8's is 23.5M/mm².

Clock speeds show the Quadro locked at 771 MHz for both base and boost, while the Vega 8 ranges from a 300 MHz base to a 1,100 MHz boost. Memory configurations are wholly different: the Quadro has 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 8 relies on shared system memory with variable bandwidth. The shading unit count is 1,536 for the Quadro versus 512 for the Vega 8, with TMUs at 128 versus 32, and ROPs at 32 versus 8.

Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware counts: the Quadro achieves 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s, while the Vega 8 manages 8.800 GPixel/s and 35.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS, with the Vega 8 additionally offering 2.253 TFLOPS FP16. TDP is another major split: the Quadro draws 100 W, while the Vega 8 is rated at just 25 W. The Quadro is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Vega 8 is an IGP with an IGP bus interface. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro and "Motherboard Dependent" for the Vega 8.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 33.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its higher FP32 throughput (2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS), suggests it is better suited for tasks that leverage raw parallel shader processing, such as OpenCL-based rendering, scientific simulation, or professional compute tasks. The 3:1 advantage in shading units and 4:1 in TMUs gives it a massive raw throughput edge. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth also makes it superior for workloads requiring large, high-speed local memory buffers.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 wins in Geekbench Metal, posting a 22.3% higher score. This indicates it is better optimized for Apple's Metal API, which is relevant for macOS applications and games. Its newer architecture with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 support also positions it better for modern cross-platform graphics APIs. The Vega 8's higher boost clock (1,100 MHz versus 771 MHz) and FP16 support (2.253 TFLOPS) make it more efficient for certain compute tasks, particularly those that can leverage half-precision math. Its 25 W TDP also makes it far more power-efficient, which is critical for thin-and-light laptops.

The Verdict

Data-driven choice depends entirely on workload. For users running OpenCL-heavy professional applications, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the clear pick—its 33.4% OpenCL advantage and 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 performance are decisive for compute-intensive tasks. Its dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth also provides a stable, high-bandwidth memory pool that shared-memory IGPs cannot match. The Quadro's higher average benchmark score (10,043 versus 9,221) and higher percentile ranking (48th versus 45th) reinforce this position for general compute.

For users prioritizing Metal performance or modern API support, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 is superior. Its 22.3% Metal lead and support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 make it the better choice for gaming or graphics work in newer environments. The Vega 8's dramatically lower TDP (25 W versus 100 W) and smaller footprint make it ideal for ultra-portable systems where battery life and thermals are paramount. The data shows a tie in win count (1-1), but the margins tell the story: the Quadro wins its test by a larger margin (33.4%) than the Vega 8 wins its own (22.3%). If forced to pick a single card for raw performance, the Quadro's higher average score and larger winning margin give it a slight edge. However, for modern API compatibility and efficiency, the Vega 8 is the forward-looking choice.