AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between these two professional GPUs, though it is heavily weighted toward one side. In the two common workloads recorded in the database, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins both head-to-head matchups. That gives it a 2-0 record in direct comparisons. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 does not win any of the shared tests, but it does hold a significant advantage in one exclusive workload that the K5200 cannot participate in.

The Radeon Pro 460 shows a strong result in Geekbench Metal, scoring 20426. This is its best recorded score across all tests, and it is the only benchmark where this GPU surpasses the 20000 mark. The Quadro K5200 has no Metal benchmark recorded, so this represents a workload where AMD's architecture holds a unique position. For users running Metal-accelerated applications, particularly within Apple's ecosystem, this score suggests the Radeon Pro 460 is well suited to that API.

The Quadro K5200 counters with the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 20180. This is its highest recorded benchmark result. The AMD card scores 16816 in the same test, meaning the NVIDIA card leads by 20 percent. In OpenCL, the K5200 scores 19024 against the Radeon Pro 460's 15284, a 24.5 percent advantage. Across the two shared benchmarks, the NVIDIA card's average score is 19602, while the AMD card averages 17509 across its three recorded tests. The percentile rankings reinforce this gap: the K5200 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon Pro 460 sits at the 61st percentile.

The use-case split therefore comes down to API preference and platform. The Radeon Pro 460 is a portable, integrated-style part designed for Mac systems, and its Metal performance is the standout metric in its favor. The Quadro K5200 is the stronger choice for cross-platform compute workloads measured through OpenCL and Vulkan, where it leads by substantial margins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, different process nodes, and different design philosophies. NVIDIA's Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on the Kepler architecture. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die is large at 561 mm² and packs 7,080 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. This is a big, power-hungry professional card from the Quadro Kepler generation.

AMD's Radeon Pro 460 uses the Baffin chip, built on the Graphics Core Next 4.0 architecture. It is manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The die is much smaller at 123 mm², with 3,000 million transistors. However, the newer process node allows a higher transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. This is a smaller, denser chip from the Radeon Pro Mac 400 series.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The NVIDIA card more than doubles the AMD card in shading units, TMUs, pixel rate, texture rate, and raw FP32 throughput.

The memory subsystems diverge as well. The K5200 supports 8 GB of GDDR5 across a 256 bit bus, with 192.15 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 460 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, with 81.25 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card roughly doubles the AMD card in memory size, bus width, and bandwidth.

Power and power delivery differ massively. The Quadro K5200 draws 150 watts of TDP, uses a dual-slot design with a 1x 6-pin power connector, and requires a 450 W suggested power supply unit. The Radeon Pro 460 is rated at just 35 watts of TDP, is an integrated graphics processor with no slot width specified as IGP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU rating listed. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA, PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs are fully specified for the K5200, with 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Radeon Pro 460 lists portable device dependent outputs.

API support shows interesting differences. Both support OpenGL 4.0, and both claim DirectX 12 support, but with different feature levels. The Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 at version 11_1 on Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 at version 12_1, which is a higher feature level. Vulkan 1.3 support is newer for the AMD card. The Radeon Pro 460 also supports FP16 compute at 1.858 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no FP16 rate recorded.

The release dates place the K5200 in July 2014, with its predecessor being Quadro Fermi and successor Quadro Maxwell. The Radeon Pro 460 arrived in October 2016, two years later. Both are end-of-life products today.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the largest single win for the Quadro K5200. The NVIDIA card scores 19024 against the Radeon Pro 460 at 15284, a 24.5 percent gap. This 24.5 percent advantage shows the scale of NVIDIA's advantage in raw compute throughput. The K5200's FP32 output is 3.553 TFLOPS, nearly double the Radeon Pro 460's 1.858 TFLOPS, which aligns with the observed OpenCL result. The Quadro K5200's closest rival in the database is the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 average score, with a -0.2 percent delta. The Radeon Pro 460's closest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K40c at 17468 average score, a 0.2 percent delta.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap somewhat. The K5200 scores 20180 while the Radeon Pro 460 scores 16816, a 20 percent delta of 20 percent in NVIDIA's favor. The Quadro K5200's average score of 19602 places it near the AMD RX 6650 XT at 19765 with a 1 percent delta, and the NVIDIA GTX 19606 1.4 percent above the 19334 average score. The Radeon Pro 460's average score of 17509 places it near the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17551 average score at -0.2 percent delta, the AMD Radeon 780M at 17588 at -0.2 percent delta, and the RTX 4060 at 17639.0 percent delta.

The 20180 Vulkan score for the NVIDIA card almost matches its 19024 OpenCL score, showing consistent performance across these two APIs. The Radeon Pro 460's Vulkan score of 16816 is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating Vulkan is the stronger API for this AMD part.

The Metal workload remains exclusive to the AMD side. The Radeon Pro 460's Metal score of 20426 is far higher than its average of 17509 average, showing that the Metal API extracts more performance from this GPU than the other recorded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

**A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has an average benchmark score of 19602, placing it at the 64th percentile among all GPUs. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average score of 17509 and sits at the 61st percentile.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT?

**A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT has an average score of 19765, which is -0.8 percent relative to the K5200. The K5200's average is 19602.

Q: What is the Radeon Pro 460's best recorded benchmark score?

**A: The Radeon Pro 460's best recorded score is 20426 in the Geekbench Metal test.

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan head-to-head?

**A: The Quadro K5200 wins the Vulkan head-to-head with a score of 20180 vs 16816, a 24.5 percent delta of 20 percent in NVIDIA's favor. The Radeon Pro 460's Vulkan score is 16816.

Q: What are the FP32 performance difference?

**A: The Quadro K5200 has 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Radeon Pro 460 has 1.858 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has a larger die size?

**A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has a 561 mm² die, and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a 123 mm² die.

Q: How does the OpenCL performance compare to the Radeon Pro 460's nearest rival?

**A: The Radeon Pro 460's closest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K40c at 17468 average score, a 0.2 percent delta 0.2 percent delta. The Radeon Pro 460's average 17509.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

**A: The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units; the Radeon Pro 460 has 1,024 shading units. The Quadro K5200 has 192 TMUs, 64 TMUs, 48 ROPS and the Radeon Pro 460 has 64 TMUs.

Q: How does the K5200 compare to the Radeon Pro 560?

**A: The Radeon Pro 460 has -0.2 percent delta 0.2 percent delta vs. the K5200's average 19602.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 at 12_0?

**A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 supports DirectX 12 at 12_0 feature level; the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 at 11_1 feature level.

Specification Differences

The Quadro K5200 uses a 28 nm process, while the Radeon Pro 460 uses a 7,080 million transistors, 561 mm² die, 12.6M per mm² density. The Radeon Pro 460 uses 14 nm, 3,000 million transistors, 123 mm² die, 24.4M per mm² density. The Quadro K5200 base 667 MHz boost clock, 771 MHz boost clock, 1502 MHz memory clock, 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, 150 W TDP, PCIe 3.0 x16, 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Radeon Pro 460 base 850 MHz base clock, 907 MHz boost clock, 1270 MHz memory clock, 5.1 Gbps effective memory clock, 81.25 GB/s bandwidth, 35 W TDP, 4 GB GDDR5 memory 128 bit bus, 1.858 TFLOPS FP32, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 1:1, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1, 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1, 1.858 TFLOPS, 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1, 1.858 TFLOPS, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 1:1, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1, 1.858 TFLOPS FP16 FP16 1:1. The Quadro K5200 8 GB GDDR5 memory 256 bit bus, 1.553 TFLOPS FP32.

The K5200 3.553 TFLOPS, 3.553 TFLOPS FP32 fp32 3.553 TFLOPS, 148 GTexel/s texture rate, 192.0 GTexel/s texture rate, 48.0 GPixel/s render output. The Radeon Pro 460 3.553 TFLOPS, 3.553 TFLOPS FP32, 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 FP32, 1.553 TFLOPS fp32 FP32, FP32 3.553 TFLOPS, FP32 3.553 TFLOPS, FP32 FP32 3.553 TFLOPS, 3.553 TFLOPS FP32. The Radeon Pro 460 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 FP32 FP32 FP32 3.553 TFLOPS FP32, 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 FP32, 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 FP32 FP32. The Quadro K5200 1.858 TFLOPS FP32 FP32 FP32 FP32 3.553 TFLOPS FP32.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 as the stronger GPU in cross-platform compute. Its OpenCL score of 19024 leads the Radeon Pro 460's 15284 by 24.5 percent, and its Vulkan score of 20180 leads 16816 by 20 percent. The K5200 also holds a higher average score of 19602 versus 17509, and sits at a higher percentile rank of 64 versus 61. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the choice is clear.

The Radeon Pro 460's case rests on its Metal performance. Its 20426 Metal score is its best recorded result by a considerable margin, and the K5200 has no Metal benchmark in the database. This suggests that in Metal-specific environments, the AMD card may be the better option. The Radeon Pro 460 also draws far less power at 35 W TDP versus 150 W, uses no power connectors, and fits an IGP form factor, making it suitable for portable or space-constrained systems.

The physical and architectural differences also inform the choice. The K5200 is a large, dual-slot, 267 mm card with 8 GB of memory and a 256 bit bus, suited to workstation desktops. The Radeon Pro 460 is a compact, integrated part with 4 GB memory on a 128 bit bus, designed for a different class of machine.

The data does not show a single universal winner. It shows the K5200 winning every benchmark they share, and the Radeon Pro 460 winning the only benchmark the K5200 cannot run. Users on a platform that relies on Metal should consider the Radeon Pro 460. Users needing OpenCL or Vulkan performance should pick the Quadro K5200. The delta is substantial in both shared tests, and the K5200's 64th percentile rank versus the Radeon Pro 460's 61st percentile confirms the overall ranking.

The final choice depends on the intended workload and platform constraints. The K5200 is the stronger compute card overall, while the Radeon Pro 460 is the better Metal performer in a low-power, integrated package.