NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two cards. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB dominates in OpenCL compute workloads, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 takes the Vulkan test. The average benchmark scores tell the broader story: the GTX 1060 6 GB sits at 21,856, which is 11.5% above the Quadro K5200's 19,602.

In the geekbench_opencl test, the GTX 1060 6 GB scores 32,322 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024. That is a 69.9% advantage, the single largest margin recorded in any comparison between these two cards. The result reflects the GTX 1060's higher FP32 throughput of 4.375 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS, as well as its much higher clock speeds: 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost, compared to 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost for the Quadro. OpenCL is a compute-oriented API, and the GTX 1060's architectural efficiency in raw shader work shows up clearly here.

The geekbench_vulkan test flips the result. The Quadro K5200 scores 20,180, beating the GTX 1060 6 GB's 18,659 by 7.5%. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API that can leverage different hardware strengths, and the Quadro's larger shading unit count (2304 versus 1280) and higher texture rate (148.0 GTexel/s versus 136.7 GTexel/s) contribute to this win. The Quadro also has 192 TMUs compared to 80 on the GTX 1060, which helps in texture-bound Vulkan workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the GTX 1060 6 GB sits in a tight cluster. Its average score of 21,856 is 1% above the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (21,629), 1.3% below the AMD Radeon RX 6700S (22,154), and 1.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (22,170). It also leads the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379) by 2.2%. This places the GTX 1060 6 GB in a competitive mid-range band where small percentage differences separate cards.

The Quadro K5200's nearest rivals show a similar clustering. Its 19,602 average is 0.2% below the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637), 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765), 1% above the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410), and 1.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19,334). The Quadro K5200 sits slightly lower in the overall ranking, with a percentile of 64 versus the GTX 1060 6 GB's 67.

The head-to-head record is one win each. The GTX 1060 6 GB wins OpenCL decisively, the Quadro K5200 wins Vulkan with a modest but real margin. Neither card sweeps, so the choice depends entirely on which API and workload matters more.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, with an average of 21,856 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200's 19,602. That is an 11.5% overall advantage in the database's aggregate metric.

Q: How large is the GTX 1060 6 GB's win in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1060 6 GB scores 32,322 in geekbench_opencl versus 19,024 for the Quadro K5200, a 69.9% difference. This is the largest margin in any benchmark shared by the two cards.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Quadro K5200 wins geekbench_vulkan with a score of 20,180 against the GTX 1060 6 GB's 18,659, a 7.5% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 1060 6 GB is within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 and AMD Radeon RX 6700S, while leading the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 by 1% and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile by 2.2%. The Quadro K5200 is within 1% of the AMD FirePro D300, AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX, and leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB by 1.4%.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 1060 6 GB ranks in the 67th percentile, while the Quadro K5200 ranks in the 64th percentile.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 1060 6 GB supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K5200 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the GTX 1060 supports Vulkan 1.4, the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB is the clear pick for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. Its 69.9% margin in geekbench_opencl is not a narrow edge; it is a decisive separation. The card's 4.375 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 1280 shading units, and significantly higher clocks (1506 MHz base, 1709 MHz boost) make it substantially faster in general-purpose compute tasks that scale with shader execution and clock speed. The GTX 1060 also wins on overall average score, 21,856 versus 19,602, and holds a higher percentile rank at 67 versus 64. For users running OpenCL-based applications, the GTX 1060 6 GB is the stronger performer.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins in Vulkan, scoring 20,180 against 18,659, a 7.5% advantage. This is a graphics-API-specific result, and the Quadro's hardware configuration explains it. With 2304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and a texture rate of 148.0 GTexel/s, the Quadro has more parallel texture-processing resources than the GTX 1060 (1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, 136.7 GTexel/s). Vulkan workloads that exercise texture sampling and draw-call throughput benefit from this configuration. The Quadro also offers more memory: 8 GB versus 6 GB, on a 256-bit bus versus 192-bit, though bandwidth is nearly identical at 192.3 GB/s versus 192.2 GB/s.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. Compute-centric OpenCL tasks go to the GTX 1060 6 GB. Vulkan-based graphics workloads go to the Quadro K5200. The Quadro's 8 GB memory capacity also makes it better suited for workloads that need larger working sets, even if raw bandwidth is essentially the same. The GTX 1060's higher pixel rate (82.03 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput make it the more capable card for fill-rate-bound and compute-bound scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The GTX 1060 6 GB uses a 16 nm process node, while the Quadro K5200 uses 28 nm; both are manufactured by TSMC. Transistor counts differ significantly: the Quadro has 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the GTX 1060 has 4,400 million on a 200 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the GTX 1060 at 22.0M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the GTX 1060 heavily. Its base clock is 1506 MHz and boost is 1709 MHz, compared to 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost on the Quadro. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 1060 runs at 2002 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the Quadro runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration differs. The GTX 1060 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. Bandwidth is effectively equal, but capacity and bus width favor the Quadro.

Shading resources are split. The Quadro has 2304 shading units and 192 TMUs, while the GTX 1060 has 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs. Both have 48 ROPs. Pixel rate strongly favors the GTX 1060 at 82.03 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors the Quadro at 148.0 GTexel/s versus 136.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput favors the GTX 1060 at 4.375 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS; the Quadro has no recorded FP16 data, while the GTX 1060 lists 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64).

Power and physical specs also differ. The GTX 1060 has a TDP of 120 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W; the Quadro has a TDP of 150 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W. Both are dual-slot and use a single 6-pin power connector. The GTX 1060 is 250 mm long, the Quadro is 267 mm; both are 111 mm high. Display outputs differ: the GTX 1060 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Release dates differ by about two years: the GTX 1060 launched in July 2016, the Quadro K5200 in July 2014. Both are end-of-life. The GTX 1060's launch MSRP was 299 USD; the Quadro has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1060 6 GB is built on the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, part of the GeForce 10-series. The Quadro K5200 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip, from the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. These are two distinct GPU designs separated by two architecture generations.

The process node difference is significant: 16 nm for Pascal versus 28 nm for Kepler. This explains the transistor density gap: 22.0M per mm² on the GTX 1060 versus 12.6M per mm² on the Quadro. The Quadro packs more total transistors (7,080 million versus 4,400 million) on a much larger die (561 mm² versus 200 mm²), but the GTX 1060 achieves higher clocks and better efficiency per transistor.

Cache and feature differences are not directly recorded, but the API support tells part of the story. The GTX 1060 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The newer Pascal architecture delivers a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which matters for modern applications.

The shading unit organization differs. The Quadro's 2304 shading units and 192 TMUs indicate a wider, more parallel design aimed at professional workloads, but its clocks are much lower. The GTX 1060's 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs run at more than double the clock speed, which flips the FP32 throughput balance in favor of the GTX 1060. Pixel rate also favors the GTX 1060 (82.03 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s) despite equal ROP counts, again due to clock speed.

The Quadro's larger memory capacity (8 GB versus 6 GB) and wider bus (256-bit versus 192-bit) reflect a professional-class memory layout, though bandwidth ends up nearly identical. The GTX 1060's smaller die and newer process node allow higher operating frequencies with lower TDP (120 W versus 150 W) and a lower suggested PSU (300 W versus 450 W).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. For OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB is the unambiguous winner, with a 69.9% advantage in geekbench_opencl and an 11.5% higher average benchmark score. Its higher clocks, newer Pascal architecture, and greater FP32 throughput make it the stronger card for general-purpose compute. The GTX 1060 also holds a higher percentile rank (67 versus 64) and ranks closer to faster modern rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 5700 and AMD Radeon RX 6700S.

For Vulkan-based graphics workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins with a 7.5% margin in geekbench_vulkan. Its larger shading unit count (2304 versus 1280) and higher texture rate (148.0 GTexel/s versus 136.7 GTexel/s) give it an edge in texture-heavy rendering. The Quadro also offers more memory (8 GB versus 6 GB), which matters for large datasets, even though bandwidth is essentially tied.

The choice depends on the workload. Users running OpenCL-heavy applications, compute pipelines, or tasks that benefit from raw FP32 throughput should pick the GTX 1060 6 GB. Users running Vulkan-based graphics workloads, or those needing the larger 8 GB memory buffer, should pick the Quadro K5200. The GTX 1060's overall average score and percentile ranking make it the better all-round card, but the Quadro's Vulkan win and memory capacity give it a specific, defensible niche. Neither card sweeps the benchmarks, so the correct pick is workload-dependent.