Intel Arc B570 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison
Intel Arc B570
Quadro K5200
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Arc B570 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200
The Intel Arc B570 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 represent two vastly different eras of GPU design. The Arc B570 is a modern 5 nm part aimed at the mainstream consumer market, while the Quadro K5200 is a legacy 28 nm professional workstation card from 2014. The benchmark data reveals a generational chasm in compute performance, though the comparison is nuanced by the K5200’s specialized professional lineage.
FAQ
Q: How does the Intel Arc B570 compare to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 in raw compute benchmarks?
A: The Arc B570 is dramatically faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc B570 scores 83,514 versus the K5200’s 19,024, a 339% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows to 379.9%, with the Arc B570 scoring 96,844 against 20,180.
Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Arc B570 has an average benchmark score of 20,556, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 sits at 19,602. The Arc B570 is roughly 4.9% higher, though both land in similar percentile territory (65th vs 64th among all GPUs).
Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the data?
A: The Arc B570’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (0.1% delta), followed by the Intel Arc A750 (-0.1%). The Quadro K5200’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro D300 (-0.2%), with the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (-0.8%) and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (1%) also nearby.
Q: How do their memory subsystems differ?
A: The Arc B570 uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 380.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s. The Arc B570 offers nearly double the bandwidth despite the narrower bus.
Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?
A: The Arc B570 achieves 200.0 GPixel/s and 360.0 GTexel/s. The Quadro K5200 manages only 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s. The Arc B570 is over 5x faster in pixel throughput and 2.4x faster in texture rate.
Q: Are both cards still in production?
A: No. The Intel Arc B570 has an Active production status with a release date of 2025-01-15. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is End-of-life, having launched on 2014-07-21.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear winner for general compute and modern workloads: the Intel Arc B570. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 339% higher than the Quadro K5200, and its Vulkan score is 379.9% higher. The Arc B570 also holds a higher average benchmark score (20,556 vs 19,602) and a slightly better percentile rank (65th vs 64th).
For users needing modern API support, the choice is unambiguous. The Arc B570 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc B570 also features 18 ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the Kepler-based K5200.
However, the Quadro K5200 is not without a niche. Its 256-bit memory bus and 48 ROPs, while paired with slower GDDR5, still provide a professional-grade memory interface. The K5200’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (1% delta), which is a flagship consumer card, suggesting the K5200’s legacy drivers and workstation optimization keep it competitive in specific legacy OpenGL scenarios. Pick the K5200 only if you require its specific professional ecosystem and can tolerate its 2014-era compute performance. For everything else, the Arc B570 is the superior hardware.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head comparison consists of two Geekbench tests, both won decisively by the Intel Arc B570. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Arc B570 scores 83,514 against the K5200’s 19,024. The 339% delta illustrates the generational leap in compute throughput. The Arc B570’s 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 rating dwarfs the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS, a 3.2x advantage that directly translates to this benchmark result.
The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows an even larger gap. The Arc B570 scores 96,844 versus 20,180, a 379.9% difference. This is expected given that Vulkan is a modern API heavily optimized for recent architectures. The K5200’s support for Vulkan 1.2.175 is functional but lacks the hardware optimizations present in the Arc B570’s Xe2-HPG architecture.
In terms of sheer rasterization throughput, the Arc B570’s pixel rate of 200.0 GPixel/s is 5.4x higher than the K5200’s 37.01 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the Arc B570 as well, at 360.0 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s. It is worth remembering the K5200 has more TMUs (192 vs 144), but the Arc B570’s much higher clock speeds (2500 MHz vs 771 MHz boost) compensate overwhelmingly.
The Arc B570 also leads in memory bandwidth with 380.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. While the K5200’s 256-bit bus is wider, its GDDR5 memory at 6 Gbps effective cannot match the GDDR6 bandwidth of the Arc B570. The wins are 2-0 in favor of the Arc B570, with no benchmark in the dataset favoring the Quadro K5200.
Specification Differences
The most striking specification difference is the process node. The Intel Arc B570 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses a 28 nm node. This translates to a transistor density of 72.1M per mm² for the Arc B570 versus 12.6M per mm² for the K5200. The Arc B570 packs 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die, whereas the K5200 has 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die.
Clock speeds are another major divider. The Arc B570 has a base and boost clock of 2500 MHz. The K5200 operates at a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. This 3.2x clock advantage at the boost level is a primary driver of the Arc B570’s performance lead.
Memory configuration differs fundamentally. The Arc B570 uses 10 GB of GDDR6 with a 160-bit bus and 380.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc B570’s memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) versus the K5200’s 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).
Compute unit counts show a mix. Both have 2304 shading units, but the Arc B570 has 144 TMUs and 80 ROPs, while the K5200 has 192 TMUs and 48 ROPs. The Arc B570 has 18 RT cores; the K5200 has none. The Arc B570’s FP32 output is 11.52 TFLOPS, and it supports FP16 at 23.04 TFLOPS (2:1). The K5200’s FP32 is 3.553 TFLOPS, with no FP16 data available.
Power and connectivity also differ. Both are 150 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU, but the Arc B570 uses a 1x 8-pin connector while the K5200 uses a 1x 6-pin. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Arc B570 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the K5200. Display outputs are modern on the Arc B570 (1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1) versus legacy on the K5200 (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2).
Architecture Differences
The Intel Arc B570 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage generation (Arc 5) with the BMG-G21 chip. This architecture is designed for modern gaming and compute workloads, incorporating dedicated ray tracing hardware in the form of 18 RT cores. The Xe2-HPG design emphasizes efficiency, with 5 nm process technology allowing high clock speeds at 150 W TDP.
The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. Kepler was designed for the 2012-2014 era, prioritizing professional compute and OpenGL performance. It lacks dedicated ray tracing cores and relies on its 2304 CUDA cores (shading units) for parallel processing. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a partial implementation of DirectX 12, whereas the Arc B570 supports full DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).
The Arc B570’s architecture also includes support for Vulkan 1.4, a more recent API version than the K5200’s Vulkan 1.2.175. The transistor density difference is stark: 72.1M per mm² on the Arc B570 versus 12.6M per mm² on the K5200. This density advantage, combined with the 5 nm node, allows the Arc B570 to achieve 11.52 TFLOPS FP32 from a 272 mm² die, while the K5200 can only manage 3.553 TFLOPS from a 561 mm² die.
The memory architecture also reflects different design philosophies. The K5200’s 256-bit bus with GDDR5 was standard for its time, but the Arc B570’s 160-bit bus with GDDR6 achieves higher bandwidth through faster memory clocks. The Arc B570’s predecessor is Alchemist, while the K5200’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, showing the K5200 as a transitional professional part. The Arc B570 is Active in production; the K5200 is End-of-life, reinforcing the generational divide.