NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 are both 28 nm Kepler parts from TSMC, built on the same 7,080-million-transistor GK110 die with a 561 mm² footprint. They share identical shading unit counts (2304), texture mapping units (192), and render output units (48). Yet the benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap: the GTX 780 wins both head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 780 scores 22863 versus the Quadro K5200’s 19024, a 16.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is similar—24514 against 20180, or 17.7% ahead. The Quadro K5200’s average benchmark score of 19602 sits just 0.2% below the AMD FirePro D300’s 19637, while the GTX 780’s 19164 average trails the NVIDIA TITAN Xp by 0.1%. Both cards occupy the 64th percentile among all GPUs, placing them in the same mid-to-upper performance tier despite the GTX 780’s clear win in direct comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GTX 780 dominates both recorded benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts 22863 against the K5200’s 19024, yielding a 16.8% delta. This is not a marginal edge—it is a substantial lead that reflects the GTX 780’s higher operating clocks and memory bandwidth. The K5200’s base clock of 667 MHz and boost of 771 MHz are significantly lower than the GTX 780’s 863 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. That clock deficit translates directly into compute throughput: the GTX 780 delivers 4.156 TFLOPS FP32 versus the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS, a 17% gap that tracks the OpenCL result almost exactly.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern. The GTX 780 scores 24514, while the K5200 manages 20180, a 17.7% difference. Vulkan performance is often sensitive to driver optimization and memory subsystem behavior, and here the GTX 780’s 288.4 GB/s bandwidth—backed by a 384-bit bus—proves decisive against the K5200’s 192.3 GB/s on a 256-bit interface. The K5200 does have 8 GB of memory versus 3 GB on the GTX 780, but that capacity advantage does not translate into higher scores in these compute-focused workloads. The head-to-head tally is 0 wins for the K5200 and 2 for the GTX 780.

Interestingly, the K5200’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19765, 0.8% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410, 1% lower), showing it clusters with modern midrange and high-end parts in average score. The GTX 780’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN Xp (19177, 0.1% lower) and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19089, 0.4% lower), which places it slightly below the K5200 in average terms despite its head-to-head victory. This paradox—winning both direct tests while having a lower average score—stems from the K5200’s higher Vulkan showing relative to its OpenCL result, whereas the GTX 780 is consistently strong across both.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the GK110 chip, but they are not identical silicon. The Quadro K5200 is built on GK110B, a revised stepping of the same die, while the GTX 780 uses the original GK110. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process with identical transistor counts (7,080 million) and die size (561 mm²), giving both a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The compute configuration is also identical: 2304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. No ray tracing or tensor cores exist on either part—these are pure Kepler designs.

The core difference lies in clock speeds and memory configuration. The K5200 operates at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, while the GTX 780 runs at 863 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. That 196 MHz base clock advantage and 131 MHz boost advantage give the GTX 780 higher pixel rate (43.30 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s) and texture rate (173.2 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput follows the same pattern: 4.156 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 780 has 3 GB on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s—50% more bandwidth despite less capacity. Both run memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), so the difference is purely bus width. This explains why the GTX 780 excels in bandwidth-sensitive workloads like OpenCL and Vulkan compute. The K5200’s larger frame buffer is aimed at professional workloads with large datasets, but that capacity does not help in these synthetic benchmarks.

API support differs slightly. The K5200 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 780 lists DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. Power requirements also diverge: the K5200 has a 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and 450 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 780 draws 250 W, needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and recommends a 600 W PSU. Physical dimensions are nearly identical—both are 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, dual-slot cards, with the GTX 780 also listed at 38 mm width.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780 wins in raw compute performance. It is 16.8% faster in OpenCL and 17.7% faster in Vulkan, with higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. This makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute, gaming workloads that leverage OpenCL, and any application where raw throughput matters more than memory capacity. Its 3 GB frame buffer is sufficient for many tasks, and its higher bandwidth ensures data moves quickly. The 250 W TDP is a cost, but the performance payoff is evident in the benchmark scores.

The K5200 wins in memory capacity. Its 8 GB frame buffer is more than double the GTX 780’s 3 GB, making it suitable for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-display professional environments where memory exhaustion is a risk. It also draws less power—150 W versus 250 W—and requires only a single 6-pin connector, making it easier to integrate into existing systems with modest PSUs. Its lower clocks (667 MHz base, 771 MHz boost) and narrower memory bus (256-bit) mean it cannot match the GTX 780’s speed, but its efficiency and capacity are clear advantages in specific niches.

For compute-heavy tasks that fit within 3 GB, the GTX 780 is unequivocally superior—its 17% lead in both benchmarks is consistent and substantial. For tasks that require more than 3 GB of memory, the K5200 is the only viable option of the two, even if its speed is lower. The K5200’s average score of 19602 is actually higher than the GTX 780’s 19164, driven by its Vulkan result (20180) being closer to the GTX 780’s Vulkan score (24514) than its OpenCL result (19024) is to the GTX 780’s OpenCL score (22863). This suggests the K5200 handles Vulkan workloads relatively better than OpenCL, though still losing both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 scores 22863 versus the Quadro K5200’s 19024, a 16.8% advantage for the GTX 780.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (192.3 GB/s), while the GTX 780 has 3 GB on a 384-bit bus (288.4 GB/s).

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput difference?

A: The GTX 780 delivers 4.156 TFLOPS, while the K5200 provides 3.553 TFLOPS, making the GTX 780 approximately 17% higher.

Q: Are these cards the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Kepler architecture on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the K5200 uses the GK110B chip revision while the GTX 780 uses the original GK110.

Q: Which card has a higher power draw?

A: The GTX 780 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector, while the K5200 draws 150 W with a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: Yes, both support Vulkan 1.2.175 and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 780 scores 24514 in Vulkan versus the K5200’s 20180.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 |

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

| Chip | GK110B | GK110 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | GeForce 700 |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2013-05-22 |

| Base Clock | 667 MHz | 863 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 902 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 37.01 GPixel/s | 43.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 148.0 GTexel/s | 173.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.553 TFLOPS | 4.156 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 649 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 19024 | 22863 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 20180 | 24514 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 19602 | 19164 |

| Percentile | 64 | 64 |