AMD Radeon HD 7970M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two cards. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison available, and it wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5200 scores 19024 against the AMD Radeon HD 7970M's 17019, a lead of 11.8%. That is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput, and it shapes every use case where OpenCL acceleration matters.

The Quadro K5200 also has a second benchmark result in the database: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 20180. The Radeon HD 7970M has no recorded Vulkan result, so the K5200 is the only one of the two with demonstrated Vulkan performance. For any workload that leans on Vulkan compute or modern graphics APIs, the K5200 is the only option with data behind it.

Where does the Radeon HD 7970M win? Based on the numbers, it does not. The database shows one head-to-head win for the Quadro K5200 and zero for the Radeon HD 7970M. The AMD card's average benchmark score sits at 17019, while the NVIDIA card's average is 19602, a difference of roughly 15%. There is no recorded test, no workload category, no API path where the Radeon HD 7970M comes out ahead.

That said, context matters. The Radeon HD 7970M is a mobile-class part on an MXM module, while the Quadro K5200 is a dual-slot desktop workstation card. The Radeon's 100 W TDP and portable-device-dependent display outputs point to a laptop or mobile workstation role. The Quadro's 150 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 6-pin power connector point to a desktop tower. So the practical question is not which card wins in a vacuum, it is which card fits the machine you are building. In pure performance terms, the data favors the K5200 without ambiguity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and different eras. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. The Radeon HD 7970M uses the Wimbledon chip, built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, and belongs to the London (HD 7900M) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical. The differences are in the silicon itself.

The GK110B die is enormous compared to Wimbledon. The Quadro K5200 packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon HD 7970M has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The K5200 uses roughly 2.5 times the transistor budget and nearly 2.6 times the die area. That scale difference shows up in the compute resources. The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon HD 7970M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Across the board, the NVIDIA part has more of everything.

Memory configuration also differs sharply. The Quadro K5200 carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon HD 7970M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus width, but bandwidth drops to 153.6 GB/s. The memory clock explains part of this: the K5200 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). For large datasets, the K5200's 6 GB extra capacity and roughly 25% more bandwidth are significant.

Clock speeds on the compute side are harder to compare directly. The Quadro K5200 has a base clock of 667 MHz and a boost clock of 771 MHz. The Radeon HD 7970M's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. What matters is the resulting throughput. The K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 37.01 GPixel/s of pixel rate, and 148.0 GTexel/s of texture rate. The Radeon HD 7970M delivers 2.176 TFLOPS FP32, 27.20 GPixel/s, and 68.00 GTexel/s. The K5200 is roughly 63% ahead in FP32, 36% ahead in pixel fill, and more than double in texture fill.

API support is similar but not identical. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ slightly: the K5200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon HD 7970M supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The K5200's recorded Vulkan benchmark score confirms it works in practice; no such data exists for the Radeon.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 19024 versus the Radeon HD 7970M's 17019, an 11.8% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K5200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, and the Radeon HD 7970M supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Only the K5200 has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score, at 20180.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon HD 7970M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector plus a 450 W suggested PSU. The Radeon HD 7970M has a 100 W TDP and uses no external power connectors, since it is an MXM module.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Quadro K5200, at 3.553 TFLOPS. The Radeon HD 7970M delivers 2.176 TFLOPS. That is a 63% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Quadro K5200 was released in 2014, and the Radeon HD 7970M was released in 2012.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | AMD Radeon HD 7970M |

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

| Chip | GK110B | Wimbledon |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | London (HD 7900M) |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 192 | 80 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.01 GPixel/s | 27.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 148.0 GTexel/s | 68.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.553 TFLOPS | 2.176 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2012-04-23 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Vancouver |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Solar System |

Note that the Radeon HD 7970M's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, so those fields are omitted here. Its length, height, and width are also unspecified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct comparison between these two cards, and it is a clear win for the Quadro K5200. In Geekbench OpenCL, the K5200 scores 19024, while the Radeon HD 7970M scores 17019. The delta is 11.8% in favor of NVIDIA. That is not a marginal victory; it is a solid, repeatable gap that will show up in any OpenCL-bound workload.

The K5200's secondary benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan at 20180, has no counterpart for the Radeon HD 7970M. That means the NVIDIA card demonstrates capability in two separate compute APIs, while the AMD card has only one recorded data point. Even if the Radeon could run Vulkan, there is no evidence in the database of how it would perform.

Looking at the wider benchmark context reinforces the gap. The Quadro K5200's average benchmark score is 19602, placing it at the 64th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon HD 7970M's average is 17019, at the 60th percentile. The K5200 sits 4 percentile points higher, but the raw score difference is more meaningful: 19602 versus 17019 is a 15.2% gap in average performance.

The nearest rival data tells a similar story. The Quadro K5200's closest competitors include the AMD FirePro D300 (average score 19637, just 0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, 0.8% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, 1% behind). The K5200 is effectively trading blows with much newer cards. Meanwhile, the Radeon HD 7970M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17037, 0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17083, 0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16932, 0.5% behind). The Radeon HD 7970M is competitive with its immediate peers, but those peers sit at a much lower absolute performance level than the K5200's peer group.

The single largest win in the head-to-head data is the OpenCL result. The K5200's 11.8% lead over the Radeon HD 7970M is the headline number. The texture rate difference is even more lopsided in relative terms: 148.0 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s, a 117% advantage for the K5200. FP32 compute is 63% higher on the K5200. Bandwidth is 25% higher. These are not small differences.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is the stronger GPU by every recorded metric. It wins the only direct benchmark, it has a higher average score, it has more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and more compute throughput. Its 11.8% OpenCL lead over the Radeon HD 7970M is the kind of margin that shows up in real workloads, not just synthetic tests. The K5200 also has a Vulkan benchmark score, which the Radeon HD 7970M lacks entirely.

Who should pick the Quadro K5200? Anyone building a desktop workstation with a PCIe slot, a dual-slot opening, and a 450 W PSU. The 8 GB frame buffer and 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets, and the 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 compute handles heavy OpenCL compute. The 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs give it flexible multi-monitor capability.

Who should pick the Radeon HD 7970M? The use case is narrower. It is an MXM module, which means it belongs in a laptop or mobile workstation, not a desktop. Its 100 W TDP and lack of external power connectors fit that mobile role. If you have an MXM-B (3.0) slot and need a GPU with 2 GB of GDDR5 and 2.176 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, this card fits. But the performance ceiling is lower, the memory capacity is a quarter of the K5200's, and it has no recorded Vulkan result.

The production status makes the choice simpler in one sense: both are end-of-life. Neither is a future-proof investment. But within the constraints of what the database records, the Quadro K5200 is the better-performing part by a wide margin. If your platform can accept a dual-slot PCIe card, take the K5200. If you are stuck with an MXM slot, the Radeon HD 7970M is the only one of the two that physically fits, and its 100 W TDP is appropriate for that environment. The benchmark data does not favor the Radeon in any category, but it remains the only option for MXM-based systems. Choose by slot compatibility first, performance second. In this matchup, the slot decides more than the silicon.