AMD Radeon RX 6600M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload lines, and the verdict is unambiguous for the two shared tests. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M wins both recorded head-to-head comparisons, but the more revealing story is where each GPU is competitive in the broader database.

The RX 6600M shows its strength across modern graphics APIs. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 73740 and OpenCL score of 67765 both place it far ahead of the Quadro K5200, which manages 20180 and 19024 respectively in those same tests. The 265.4% delta in Vulkan and 256.2% delta in OpenCL suggest the AMD part is not merely faster; it is operating in a different performance tier altogether.

The Quadro K5200, meanwhile, has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data. Its only benchmark entries are the two Geekbench tests, both of which it loses decisively. That does not mean it lacks utility, but within the measured data, its role appears limited to legacy or compute-specific workflows that are not captured here. The database shows zero wins for the NVIDIA card, which is a stark result for a GPU that was once a professional workstation staple.

The use-case split, then, is not about one card winning some tests and the other winning others. It is about the RX 6600M dominating every shared workload, while the Quadro K5200 simply has no counterpoint in the recorded measurements. Users seeking modern API performance, particularly Vulkan or OpenCL compute, should look squarely at the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras, and the data reflects that generational gap. The RX 6600M uses RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the Quadro K5200 relies on Kepler on a 28 nm TSMC process. That process gap alone explains much of the efficiency and clock speed disparity.

Transistor counts tell a curious story. The AMD chip packs 11,060 million transistors onto a 237 mm² die, yielding a density of 46.7M per mm². The NVIDIA chip, by contrast, has 7,080 million transistors spread across a much larger 561 mm² die, giving a density of just 12.6M per mm². The RX 6600M achieves more than three times the transistor density, which is a direct consequence of the newer 7 nm node versus the older 28 nm process.

Clock speeds amplify the architectural divide. The RX 6600M runs at a base of 2068 MHz and boosts to 2416 MHz, with a game clock of 2177 MHz. The Quadro K5200 sits at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. That is a massive frequency advantage for the AMD part, roughly triple at base clock, which directly feeds into its compute throughput.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RX 6600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K5200 also has 8 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s. Despite having twice the bus width, the older GDDR5 memory and lower clock speed (1502 MHz versus 1750 MHz) mean the Quadro actually trails in bandwidth. The RX 6600M also has a higher effective memory speed of 14 Gbps versus 6 Gbps.

Compute resources show a different kind of tradeoff. The Quadro K5200 has more shading units (2304 versus 1792), more texture mapping units (192 versus 112), and more transistors dedicated to general purpose compute. Yet the RX 6600M still produces far higher throughput figures: 8.659 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.553 TFLOPS, and 270.6 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s. The AMD part also adds 28 ray tracing cores, which the Kepler architecture lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in the shared benchmark set, but both tell the same story with striking margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600M scores 67765 against the Quadro K5200's 19024, a delta of 256.2%. That is not a marginal victory; it indicates the AMD GPU delivers roughly three and a half times the OpenCL performance in this measurement.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RX 6600M posts 73740, while the Quadro K5200 manages 20180, a delta of 265.4%. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the Kepler architecture's lack of support for newer features likely explains part of the gap. The RX 6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The win count is 2 for the RX 6600M and 0 for the Quadro K5200. Every shared benchmark favors the AMD card, and by enormous margins. The average benchmark score for the RX 6600M is 23273, which places it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K5200 averages 19602, sitting in the 64th percentile. Those percentile figures are closer than the head-to-head deltas might suggest, but that is because the averages include a broader set of workloads where the Quadro's legacy strengths may still register.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification, and the table below isolates where they diverge.

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6600M | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 7,080 million |

| Die size | 237 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor density | 46.7M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2068 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2416 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1792 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 112 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Ray tracing cores | 28 | None |

| FP32 performance | 8.659 TFLOPS | 3.553 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not specified |

| Pixel rate | 154.6 GPixel/s | 37.01 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 270.6 GTexel/s | 148.0 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 100 W | 150 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 450 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable device dependent | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release date | 2021-05-30 | 2014-07-21 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Maxwell |

The most consequential differences are the process node, clock speeds, and API support. The RX 6600M is faster in every throughput metric despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, because its clock speeds and architectural efficiency more than compensate. The Quadro K5200's only structural advantages are its wider memory bus, higher shading unit count, and larger physical board, but none of those translate into better measured performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600M averages 23273 across all recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 averages 19602. The AMD card also sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs versus the Quadro's 64th.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6600M in Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6600M scores 73740 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 265.4% higher than the Quadro K5200's 20180. That is the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the biggest architectural difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 6600M uses RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm process with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, while the Quadro K5200 uses Kepler on a 28 nm process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The transistor density difference is 46.7M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 have any advantages in the data?

A: The Quadro K5200 has more shading units (2304 versus 1792), more TMUs (192 versus 112), and a wider 256 bit memory bus compared to the RX 6600M's 128 bit bus. However, it still produces lower bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s) and lower overall performance in every shared benchmark.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RX 6600M has a TDP of 100 W and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The AMD part is also an IGP form factor, whereas the NVIDIA card is dual-slot.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RX 6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card also adds 28 ray tracing cores, which the Kepler architecture does not have.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction only. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M wins every shared benchmark, and it wins by margins that are difficult to overstate. A 256.2% lead in OpenCL and a 265.4% lead in Vulkan are not incremental improvements; they are generational leaps. The RX 6600M also posts a higher average benchmark score (23273 versus 19602), a higher percentile rank (68th versus 64th), and does so at a lower TDP (100 W versus 150 W).

For users who need modern API support, ray tracing capability, or efficient compute performance, the RX 6600M is the clear choice. It is faster, newer, more power efficient, and built on a vastly more advanced process node. The Quadro K5200's only recorded advantages are structural: more shading units, more TMUs, and a wider memory bus, none of which translate into a single benchmark victory.

The Quadro K5200 may still have a place in legacy professional environments where its Kepler architecture and specific display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) are required, and its dual-slot form factor suits traditional workstation builds. But within the measured data, there is no workload where it beats the RX 6600M. Anyone choosing between these two should prioritize the AMD card unless they have a specific compatibility requirement that only the Quadro can satisfy.

The verdict is straightforward: the RX 6600M is the superior GPU by every recorded metric, and the Quadro K5200 represents an older era that the data cannot justify for modern workloads.