AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 takes both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5200 scores 19,024 against the Radeon Pro 560's 15,504, a 22.7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens slightly, with the Quadro K5200 at 20,180 versus 16,232 for the Radeon Pro 560, a 24.3% lead. These are substantial margins, not marginal differences, and they hold across both compute APIs tested.

The average benchmark score reinforces the pattern. The Quadro K5200 averages 19,602 across its recorded tests, while the Radeon Pro 560 averages 17,551. That is a difference of roughly 2,051 points, or about 11.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. The percentile ranking also favors NVIDIA: the Quadro K5200 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon Pro 560 sits at the 61st. Neither card is near the top of the database, but the Quadro lands in a higher percentile band.

Looking at nearest rivals puts these scores in context. The Quadro K5200's average of 19,602 places it within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, a 1% delta) and within 1.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19,334). It trails the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) by only 0.2% and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765) by 0.8%. So the Quadro K5200, despite its age, is competitive with much newer hardware in these synthetic workloads. The Radeon Pro 560's average of 17,551 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, a 0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, a 0.5% delta). It slightly edges the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509) by 0.2% and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468) by 0.5%. The Radeon Pro 560 is effectively in the same performance tier as these rivals, while the Quadro K5200 sits in a higher tier.

The Vulkan result is the single biggest win for the Quadro K5200. Its 20,180 score exceeds the Radeon Pro 560's 16,232 by 3,948 points. The OpenCL result is also decisive but slightly closer in percentage terms. The data shows no recorded test where the Radeon Pro 560 wins. The Radeon does have one additional benchmark, Geekbench Metal, where it scores 20,918, but the Quadro K5200 has no Metal result in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split follows the benchmark results closely. The Quadro K5200 wins in OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads. For applications that rely on OpenCL, such as certain rendering, simulation, and general GPU compute tasks, the data shows a 22.7% advantage for the Quadro. For Vulkan-based workloads, including modern game engines and compute shaders, the Quadro leads by 24.3%. These are the two areas where the database records direct comparisons, and NVIDIA wins both.

The Radeon Pro 560 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head tests. However, its Metal benchmark score of 20,918 is notable. Metal is Apple's graphics and compute API, and the Radeon Pro 560 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac generation. The database does not include a Metal score for the Quadro K5200, so it is impossible to say which card is faster in Metal from the recorded data. What can be said is that the Radeon Pro 560's Metal score is higher than its own OpenCL and Vulkan scores, suggesting it is better optimized for Metal workloads on macOS. The Quadro K5200's display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon Pro 560's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," which aligns with its IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width and its placement in a Mac portable context.

For users working in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro K5200 is the stronger choice based on the data. For users in a Mac environment where Metal is the primary API, the Radeon Pro 560 has a competitive Metal score, but without a direct comparison, the data cannot confirm an advantage. The Radeon Pro 560 also consumes far less power, with a 75 W TDP versus 150 W for the Quadro, and it needs no power connectors, while the Quadro requires a single 6-pin connector. That makes the Radeon suitable for integrated or low-power systems, while the Quadro demands a more substantial power delivery setup.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers, different process nodes, and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip, built on GCN 4.0, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a much higher transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is far smaller and denser, reflecting its newer process node, while the NVIDIA chip is physically massive by comparison.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon Pro 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has more than double the shading units, triple the TMUs, and triple the ROPs. This explains the large performance gap in compute workloads. The pixel rate for the Quadro is 37.01 GPixel/s, while the Radeon manages 14.51 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 148.0 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 58.05 GTexel/s for the Radeon. Floating-point performance (FP32) is 3.553 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 1.858 TFLOPS for the Radeon, meaning the Quadro delivers roughly 91% more FP32 compute. The Radeon does offer FP16 at 1.858 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 figure.

Memory is another major divider. The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s. The Quadro has double the capacity, double the bus width, and more than double the bandwidth. The memory clocks also differ: the Quadro runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Radeon runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective. For memory-heavy workloads, the Quadro has a decisive advantage.

The API support shows a reversal of sorts. The Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon Pro 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which matters for compatibility with modern software. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the Radeon is an IGP with no listed dimensions. The power requirements reflect this: the Quadro has a 150 W TDP and a suggested 450 W PSU, while the Radeon has a 75 W TDP and no suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 19,024 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 15,504. The Quadro leads by 22.7%.

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 20,180 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 scores 16,232. The Quadro leads by 24.3%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 560 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head tests, the Radeon Pro 560 has no wins. However, it has a Geekbench Metal score of 20,918, and the Quadro K5200 has no Metal score in the database, so no comparison is possible for that API.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K5200's average score of 19,602 is within 0.2% of the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) and within 1% of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410). The Radeon Pro 560's average of 17,551 is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588) and within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639).

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Radeon Pro 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is the faster card in the recorded benchmarks. It wins OpenCL by 22.7% and Vulkan by 24.3%, and its average benchmark score of 19,602 is 11.7% higher than the Radeon Pro 560's 17,551. It also ranks higher in the database, at the 64th percentile versus the 61st. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro K5200 is the clear pick.

The Radeon Pro 560 is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the recorded head-to-head tests. It has a higher Metal score (20,918) than its OpenCL (15,504) and Vulkan (16,232) scores, and it belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac generation, suggesting it is tailored for Apple systems. Its 75 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable or low-power Macs, while the Quadro K5200 demands a dual-slot card, a 6-pin power connector, and a 450 W PSU. The Radeon also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, which may matter for software compatibility.

Users should choose based on their environment and workload. For compute-heavy tasks in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro K5200 offers significantly more performance, more memory (8 GB versus 4 GB), and more bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s). For Mac users who rely on Metal and need a low-power integrated solution, the Radeon Pro 560 is the sensible option, provided the performance gap is acceptable. The data does not support choosing the Radeon for raw compute speed, but it does support choosing it for specific platform and power constraints.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 28 nm for the Quadro K5200 and 14 nm for the Radeon Pro 560. Transistor count is 7,080 million versus 3,000 million. Die size is 561 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm². The Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the Radeon has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. FP32 performance is 3.553 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 1.858 TFLOPS for the Radeon. The Radeon has FP16 at 1.858 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 figure. Memory size is 8 GB versus 4 GB, bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clock is 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the Radeon's is 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective. The TDP is 150 W versus 75 W. The Quadro is dual-slot with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Radeon. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, while the Radeon's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Radeon has no listed dimensions. The Quadro was released on 2014-07-21, and the Radeon on 2017-04-17. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, while the Radeon has no listed predecessor or successor. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but they differ in DirectX and Vulkan support: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.