NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though uneven, performance gap between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200. In the two benchmark tests available, the TITAN Z wins both, but the margin of victory is dramatically different depending on the workload.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN Z posts a score of 25465 against the K5200's 19024. That is a delta of 33.9%, meaning the TITAN Z is roughly a third faster in this compute-heavy API. This is a substantial lead, one that suggests the TITAN Z can handle raw parallel computation with noticeably more authority.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the TITAN Z scores 22006, while the K5200 scores 20180. The delta shrinks to just 9%. While the TITAN Z still wins, the gap is far narrower. This implies that in graphics-oriented, driver-optimized workloads, the K5200 is much closer to the TITAN Z than its overall compute deficit might suggest. The K5200's architecture appears to hold up better in Vulkan, perhaps due to different scheduling priorities or driver maturity.

Looking at the aggregate data, the TITAN Z's average benchmark score is 23736, while the K5200's average is 19602. That is a nearly 21% difference in overall performance. The TITAN Z also sits at the 69th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the K5200's 64th percentile. So, while both are above average, the TITAN Z is clearly positioned higher in the overall performance distribution.

In terms of closest rivals, the TITAN Z's average score places it within 0.5% of an RTX 3080 Mobile and just 0.6% behind an AMD Radeon RX 9070. It is also 1.4% behind the RX 6800S. This suggests that despite its age, the TITAN Z still trades blows with modern mid-range and laptop-class GPUs. The K5200, on the other hand, is essentially tied with an AMD FirePro D300 (0.2% behind), and sits between the RX 7900 XTX (1% ahead) and the GTX 1060 3 GB (1.4% ahead). This shows the K5200 is roughly in the same performance tier as a GTX 1060, which is remarkable for a workstation card of its era.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same fundamental silicon: the GK110B chip, fabricated at TSMC's 28 nm process. They share identical transistor counts of 7,080 million and the same die size of 561 mm². This means the transistor density is identical at 12.6M per square millimeter. The core architecture is also the same, Kepler, with no ray tracing or tensor cores present.

The differences begin with how the silicon is configured. The TITAN Z has 2880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operations pipelines. The K5200 has fewer shading units at 2304 and fewer texture units at 192, but retains the same 48 ROPs. This means the TITAN Z has 576 more cores and 48 more TMUs to drive raw shader throughput.

Clock speeds also favor the TITAN Z. Its base clock is 705 MHz with a boost of 876 MHz, while the K5200 runs at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. The TITAN Z's higher clocks, combined with more cores, yield 5,046 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus the K5200's 3,553 TFLOPS. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the TITAN Z hits 52.56 GPixel/s and 210.2 GTexel/s, while the K5200 achieves 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are strikingly different. The TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5200 has more capacity at 8 GB, but on a narrower 256-bit bus, resulting in just 192.3 GB/s. This is a major divergence: the TITAN Z prioritizes raw bandwidth, while the K5200 prioritizes capacity. This likely reflects their intended uses. The TITAN Z is built for high-throughput compute, where bandwidth is critical. The K5200 is designed for professional visualization, where holding larger datasets in memory may be more important.

The memory clock also differs: the TITAN Z runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the K5200 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The TITAN Z's memory is not only on a wider bus but also faster per pin.

Physically, the TITAN Z is a larger board. It occupies a triple-slot width and requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested 750 W power supply. The K5200 is a dual-slot card with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested 450 W supply. This reflects the TITAN Z's much higher power draw.

The display outputs differ as well. The TITAN Z offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, omitting HDMI. The K5200 also supports the same DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, plus Vulkan 1.2.175, but the TITAN Z has a higher memory clock.

Where Each One Wins

The data clearly shows distinct use cases for each card.

The TITAN Z wins decisively in OpenCL compute. Its 25465 score versus the K5200's 19024 is a 33.9% advantage. This is a card built for general-purpose GPU compute, likely suited for tasks like rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that scales with shading units and memory bandwidth. The higher pixel rate (52.56 GPixel/s vs 37.01) and texture rate (210.2 GTexel/s vs 148.0) also suggest it is better suited for fill-rate-heavy tasks.

The K5200, despite losing, shows unexpected strength in Vulkan. Its score of 20180 is only 9% behind the TITAN Z, even though its compute is significantly lower. This suggests the K5200 is better optimized for modern graphics APIs relative to its raw power. For tasks that rely on Vulkan, such as newer game engine workloads or certain professional rendering pipelines, the K5200 is surprisingly competitive.

The K5200's 8 GB of memory is also a clear advantage. In scenarios where the dataset exceeds 6 GB, the TITAN Z would be forced to spill or swap, while the K5200 can keep everything in VRAM. This is crucial for large 3D scenes, high-resolution textures, or machine learning inference with bigger models. The TITAN Z's 6 GB is a hard limit, and the K5200's extra capacity is a real advantage for professional work.

The TITAN Z's power draw is a double-edged sword. It needs 375 W and a 750 W PSU, whereas the K5200 only needs 150 W and a 450 W PSU. This means the K5200 can be installed in far more systems, including those with modest power supplies or in multi-GPU configurations. The TITAN Z also requires a triple-slot design, making it harder to fit in standard cases or alongside other cards.

The TITAN Z wins on raw throughput and compute, but the K5200 wins on memory capacity and power efficiency. The K5200's dual-slot design and single 6-pin power connector make it far easier to integrate into a professional workstation.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the choice between these two cards is made simpler by the fact that the TITAN Z wins both benchmarks, but the margin varies wildly.

If the user prioritizes raw performance, the TITAN Z is the clear choice. In OpenCL, it is 34% faster, and in Vulkan, it is 9% faster. For any workload that is compute-bound, the TITAN Z will deliver more frames, more renders, or more results per second. Its higher pixel rate and texture rate also make it the better pick for interactive 3D work where fill-rate matters, such as real-time visualization or certain CAD tasks.

If the user prioritizes memory capacity or power efficiency, the K5200 has merits. The 8 GB of VRAM versus 6 GB could be the difference between loading a complex model and not. The K5200 also consumes only 150 W, which means it can be paired with a 450 W PSU and fit into a dual-slot system. This makes it a more flexible option for users who need a professional card in a constrained or older system.

The TITAN Z's higher average score (23736 vs 19602) and higher percentile (69 vs 64) indicate that, in a general sense, it is the more capable GPU of the two. The data does not lie: the TITAN Z is faster in every recorded test. The K5200 only truly wins in the areas of memory capacity and power efficiency.

So, the verdict is simple: choose the TITAN Z for maximum performance, and choose the K5200 for its memory size and power profile. The TITAN Z is the better all rounder in terms of raw speed, but the K5200 is a more practical card for specific professional needs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z has an average score of 23736, while the Quadro K5200 has an average of 19602.

Q: How much faster is the TITAN Z in OpenCL?

A: The TITAN Z scores 25465 versus 19024, a delta of 33.9% in its favor.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 have more memory?

A: Yes, the K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the TITAN Z has 6 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The TITAN Z has a TDP of 375 W and needs a 750 W power supply with 2x 8-pin connectors. The K5200 has a 150 W TDP, needs a 450 W PSU, and only one 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The TITAN Z has a pixel rate of 52.56 GPixel/s, while the K5200 achieves 37.01 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both cards from the same architecture and node?

A: Yes, both use the GK110B chip, Kepler architecture, and TSMC's 28 nm process, with 7,080 million transistors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Z | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |

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

| Base Clock | 705 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 876 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR5 | 8 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 336.0 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2880 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 240 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 52.56 GPixel/s | 37.01 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 210.2 GTexel/s | 148.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 5.046 TFLOPS | 3.553 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 375 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 750 W | 450 W |

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

| Release Date | 2014-05-27 | 2014-07-21 |