NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data gives the Quadro K5200 a clear lead in both available benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5200 scores 19024 against 17399 for the GTX 690, a 9.3% advantage. The gap widens significantly in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro K5200 posts 20180 versus 16675, a 21% margin. This means the professional card outperforms the dual-GPU gaming flagship by nearly a fifth in that workload.

The average benchmark score reinforces this pattern: the Quadro K5200 averages 19602, while the GTX 690 averages 17037. The Quadro K5200 therefore sits roughly 15% higher on aggregate. In the database percentile ranking, the Quadro K5200 lands at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 690 sits at the 60th. That four-percentile gap understates the actual score difference, since the distribution is dense around these mid-range values.

The nearest rival data provides context. The Quadro K5200's closest competitors are the AMD FirePro D300 (19637, 0.2% above), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, 0.8% above), the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, 1% below), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19334, 1.4% below). All four sit within a tight 2.2% band, meaning the K5200's absolute score is competitive with much newer consumer parts. The GTX 690, by contrast, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019, 0.1% above), the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT (17083, 0.3% below), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16932, 0.6% below), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (17208, 1% above). The GTX 690's performance level is therefore comparable to a modern mid-range card, despite its age and dual-chip design.

Neither GPU wins a head-to-head test. The Quadro K5200 takes both, which is notable given that the GTX 690 was launched with a much higher clock speed and a dual-GPU configuration. The 21% Vulkan delta is particularly striking, as it suggests the K5200's architecture handles modern compute API workloads far more efficiently.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, but they are built on different chips. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B die, while the GTX 690 uses the GK104 die. The manufacturing process is identical at 28 nm via TSMC, but the chip sizes diverge substantially. The GK110B packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GK104 contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The K5200's chip is therefore roughly double the transistor count and nearly double the die area.

The compute resources reflect this gap. The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GTX 690 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 50% more shaders, 50% more TMUs, and 50% more ROPs on the K5200. The pixel rate stands at 37.01 GPixel/s for the K5200 versus 32.61 GPixel/s for the GTX 690. Texture rate is 148.0 GTexel/s versus 130.4 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.553 TFLOPS against 3.130 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The GTX 690 runs at a 915 MHz base and 1019 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5200 sits at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. The GTX 690's higher clocks partially compensate for its lower shader count, but the K5200 still wins on raw throughput. Memory clocks are identical at 1502 MHz, reaching 6 Gbps effective on both cards.

Memory capacity is a major differentiator. The Quadro K5200 carries 8 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 690 has only 2 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, and both achieve 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The K5200's fourfold capacity advantage matters for large datasets, even though bandwidth is unchanged.

Power characteristics differ as well. The Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W power supply. The GTX 690 draws 300 W, needs two 8-pin connectors, and recommends a 700 W PSU. The K5200 uses half the power while delivering higher compute throughput, an efficiency improvement that comes from the larger, more capable GK110B die running at lower clocks.

API support is close but not identical. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. DirectX support differs: the Quadro K5200 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 690 lists DirectX 12 (11_0). The K5200's feature level is one revision higher.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5200 wins every benchmark in the database. In OpenCL, a 9.3% advantage reflects its higher shader count and FP32 throughput. In Vulkan, the 21% lead shows an even larger architectural efficiency gap. For compute-heavy workloads, data-parallel tasks, and any application that exercises the shading units heavily, the K5200 is the stronger performer.

The GTX 690 has no benchmark wins recorded. However, its higher base and boost clocks mean it could be faster in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive scenarios where clock speed matters more than raw throughput. The database does not include such tests, so this remains speculative. The GTX 690 also has the advantage of a lower transistor density, which historically correlates with better thermal behavior per transistor, but again, no thermal measurements are recorded.

For professional use cases, the Quadro K5200's 8 GB memory capacity is decisive. Large 3D scenes, high-resolution textures, and scientific datasets that exceed 2 GB will spill over on the GTX 690, causing severe performance degradation. The K5200's 150 W TDP also makes it easier to integrate into workstations with modest power budgets. The GTX 690's 300 W requirement demands a beefier power supply and better chassis cooling.

For gaming, the GTX 690 was designed for high frame rates at its launch, but its 2 GB frame buffer limits modern titles at high resolutions. The K5200's lower clocks and professional driver tuning make it less suited for gaming, though its raw compute advantage suggests it would not embarrass itself. The database does not include gaming benchmarks, so no definitive claim is possible.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every silicon-level specification. Chip: GK110B versus GK104. Transistors: 7,080 million versus 3,540 million. Die size: 561 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density: 12.6M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm². Base clock: 667 MHz versus 915 MHz. Boost clock: 771 MHz versus 1019 MHz. Memory size: 8 GB versus 2 GB. Shading units: 2304 versus 1536. TMUs: 192 versus 128. ROPs: 48 versus 32. Pixel rate: 37.01 GPixel/s versus 32.61 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 148.0 GTexel/s versus 130.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 3.553 TFLOPS versus 3.130 TFLOPS. TDP: 150 W versus 300 W. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 700 W.

Display outputs also differ. The Quadro K5200 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 690 provides 3x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. Physical dimensions: the K5200 is 267 mm long (10.5 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches). The GTX 690 is 279 mm long (11 inches), 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), and 38 mm wide (1.5 inches). Both are dual-slot cards.

DirectX support: the K5200 lists 12 (11_1), the GTX 690 lists 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. Memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are identical: GDDR5, 256-bit, 192.3 GB/s. Memory clock is also identical at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Both use PCIe 3.0 x16.

Release dates differ by over two years. The GTX 690 launched on 2012-05-02, while the Quadro K5200 followed on 2014-07-21. The GTX 690 lists a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The K5200 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products. The GTX 690's predecessor is the GeForce 500 series and its successor is the GeForce 700 series. The K5200's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi line and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell line.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Quadro K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS, while the GTX 690 delivers 3.130 TFLOPS. The K5200 leads by approximately 13.5%.

Q: How much memory do the two cards have?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5, and the GTX 690 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin connector with a suggested 450 W power supply. The GTX 690 has a 300 W TDP, needs two 8-pin connectors, and recommends a 700 W power supply.

Q: Why does the GTX 690 have a higher clock speed?

A: The GTX 690 runs at 915 MHz base and 1019 MHz boost, compared to 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost on the Quadro K5200. The GTX 690's higher clocks compensate for its smaller GK104 chip with fewer shading units.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. For DirectX, the Quadro K5200 lists version 12 (11_1), while the GTX 690 lists version 12 (11_0).

Q: Which card performs better in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The Quadro K5200 wins both tests. It scores 19024 in OpenCL versus 17399, and 20180 in Vulkan versus 16675. The K5200's average benchmark score is 19602, compared to 17037 for the GTX 690.