AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct comparison between the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT and the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, and it is decisively one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6500 XT scored 48,289 points against 11,771 points for the Quadro K5100M, a 310.2% advantage for the AMD part. This is not a marginal edge; the Radeon more than quadruples the Quadro’s compute output in this API, which reflects substantial differences in raw shader throughput and memory subsystem efficiency.

Looking at the broader benchmark database, the RX 6500 XT’s average score of 11,842 places it at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K5100M’s average of 10,043 sits at the 48th percentile. The RX 6500 XT’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (average 11,960, 1% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A (average 11,998, 1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (average 11,680, 1.4% lower). The Quadro K5100M, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (average 10,070, 0.3% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (average 10,013, 0.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (average 9,959, 0.8% higher). In other words, the RX 6500 XT competes in a performance tier roughly 18% above the Quadro K5100M’s tier, based on average scores.

The single head-to-head result is consistent with those aggregate figures. The RX 6500 XT wins the only shared benchmark, and the Quadro K5100M has no recorded wins against the RX 6500 XT in the database. The margin in OpenCL is large enough that even accounting for the Quadro’s different driver optimizations or mobile-oriented design, the performance gap is fundamental rather than incidental.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on vastly different process nodes. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 6 nm versus 28 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The RX 6500 XT packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro K5100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The RX 6500 XT achieves more than four times the transistor density, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

The compute resources also differ sharply. The RX 6500 XT has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, along with 16 ray tracing cores. The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer shaders and TMUs, the RX 6500 XT delivers higher throughput because of its much higher clocks. The RX 6500 XT runs at a base clock of 2310 MHz and a boost clock of 2815 MHz, with a game clock of 2610 MHz. The Quadro K5100M runs at a fixed 771 MHz for both base and boost. That clock advantage translates directly to pixel and texture rates: the RX 6500 XT achieves 90.08 GPixel/s and 180.2 GTexel/s, while the Quadro K5100M manages 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures follow the same pattern, 5.765 TFLOPS for the RX 6500 XT versus 2.369 TFLOPS for the Quadro K5100M. The RX 6500 XT also lists FP16 performance at 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro K5100M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are another major divergence. The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 143.9 GB/s. The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 115.2 GB/s. The RX 6500 XT’s memory runs at 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K5100M’s memory runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The RX 6500 XT has more bandwidth despite a much narrower bus because of the vastly faster memory clock. The Quadro K5100M offers more capacity, which can matter for certain workloads, but the RX 6500 XT moves data faster.

Feature support also differs. The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 6500 XT includes ray tracing hardware, the Quadro K5100M does not. The RX 6500 XT uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the Quadro K5100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface. Display outputs differ as well: the RX 6500 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro K5100M’s outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its mobile workstation origin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT. It delivers 5.765 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.369 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M, and it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 310.2% (48,289 versus 11,771).

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M have more memory?

A: Yes, the Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6. However, the RX 6500 XT has higher memory bandwidth at 143.9 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Does the Quadro K5100M have ray tracing support?

A: No, the Quadro K5100M has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6500 XT has 16 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the process node difference between these two GPUs?

A: The RX 6500 XT is fabricated on a 6 nm process, while the Quadro K5100M is on a 28 nm process. Both use TSMC as the foundry.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 6500 XT has an average benchmark score of 11,842, placing it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K5100M has an average score of 10,043, placing it in the 48th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture. Process nodes are 6 nm versus 28 nm, transistor counts are 5,400 million versus 3,540 million, and die sizes are 107 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge heavily. The RX 6500 XT has a base clock of 2310 MHz and a boost clock of 2815 MHz, plus a game clock of 2610 MHz. The Quadro K5100M has a flat 771 MHz for both base and boost, with no game clock listed. Memory clocks are 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective).

Memory size, type, and bus width all differ: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus versus 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the RX 6500 XT at 143.9 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. Shading units are 1,024 versus 1,536, TMUs are 64 versus 128, and ROPs are equal at 32. The RX 6500 XT has 16 ray tracing cores; the Quadro K5100M has none. FP32 performance is 5.765 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 11.53 TFLOPS (2:1) for the RX 6500 XT, with no FP16 listed for the Quadro K5100M.

Pixel and texture rates are 90.08 GPixel/s and 180.2 GTexel/s for the RX 6500 XT, versus 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s for the Quadro K5100M. TDP is 107 W versus 100 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus MXM Module, power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus none, and the suggested PSU is 300 W for the RX 6500 XT, with none listed for the Quadro K5100M. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x4 versus MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus “Portable Device Dependent.” Release dates are January 2022 versus July 2013. The RX 6500 XT has a launch MSRP of 199 USD; the Quadro K5100M has no launch MSRP recorded.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the superior performer in every measured compute metric. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 310.2%, has a higher average score (11,842 versus 10,043), and sits at a higher percentile (51 versus 48). The RX 6500 XT also offers newer architecture, a dramatically smaller and denser die, higher clocks, faster memory bandwidth, and modern API support including ray tracing. The Quadro K5100M’s advantages are limited to memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB) and a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 64-bit), but those do not offset the massive compute deficit. For any workload that stresses shader throughput, texture fill, or pixel fill, the RX 6500 XT is the clear choice.

The Quadro K5100M, however, is a mobile workstation part from 2013, designed for a different era and form factor. Its MXM module interface and lack of onboard power connectors reflect its intended use in laptops. In that context, its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus may still serve memory-capacity-sensitive applications, but its compute performance is firmly in the past. The database’s nearest rivals for the Quadro K5100M, such as the Radeon R9 M375 and GeForce GTX 870M, are also older mobile or low-end desktop parts, confirming its position in the lower half of the performance distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins in virtually every scenario that relies on raw GPU throughput. Its FP32 compute of 5.765 TFLOPS is more than double the Quadro K5100M’s 2.369 TFLOPS, so tasks like general-purpose compute, OpenCL workloads, and modern game rendering will favor the Radeon heavily. The RX 6500 XT also has ray tracing hardware, support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for current-generation gaming and graphics applications. Its higher memory bandwidth (143.9 GB/s) and faster pixel and texture rates (90.08 GPixel/s and 180.2 GTexel/s) further cement its dominance in real-time rendering.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins only in scenarios where its larger memory capacity or wider bus is the deciding factor. With 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface, it can hold larger working sets than the RX 6500 XT’s 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. This could theoretically benefit certain professional visualization or data-intensive workloads that require more framebuffer memory, though the RX 6500 XT’s higher bandwidth may still compensate in many cases. The Quadro K5100M also carries the Quadro branding, which historically implies certified drivers for professional applications, but the database does not provide any benchmark data to quantify that advantage. Based strictly on recorded measurements, the RX 6500 XT is the winner in all direct comparisons, and the Quadro K5100M’s only edge is the unquantified capacity of its larger memory pool.