NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Mobile compare to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 in average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3080 Mobile records an average benchmark score of 23,628, while the Quadro K5200 averages 19,602. The RTX 3080 Mobile sits at the 69th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K5200 sits at the 64th percentile.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX 3080 Mobile scores 104,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 19,024 for the Quadro K5200. That is a 451% advantage for the RTX 3080 Mobile.

Q: What about Geekbench Vulkan results?

A: The RTX 3080 Mobile again leads, scoring 104,066 against 20,180 for the Quadro K5200, a 415.7% difference in favor of the newer card.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Quadro K5200 wins?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmark tests recorded, the RTX 3080 Mobile wins both. The Quadro K5200 has no recorded wins against this competitor.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card in the database?

A: For the RTX 3080 Mobile, the nearest rival is the GeForce GTX TITAN Z (23,736 average, 0.5% behind) and the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile (23,518 average, 0.5% ahead). For the Quadro K5200, the nearest rival is the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637 average, 0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765 average, 0.8% ahead).

Q: Do the two cards share any architectural lineage?

A: Both are NVIDIA products, but they belong to different architectures entirely. The RTX 3080 Mobile uses Ampere on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the Quadro K5200 uses Kepler on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 3080 Mobile is built on the GA104 chip using the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip with the Kepler architecture, made by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process gap is substantial: the RTX 3080 Mobile packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per mm². The Quadro K5200 houses 7,080 million transistors on a larger 561 mm² die, with a density of just 12.6 million per mm².

The RTX 3080 Mobile includes hardware features absent from the Quadro K5200. It has 48 dedicated ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The Quadro K5200 lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, reflecting its Kepler-era design. The API support also differs: the RTX 3080 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Memory technology diverges as well. The RTX 3080 Mobile uses 8 GB of GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, delivering 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective, with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. Both share a 256-bit memory bus, but the newer memory standard gives the RTX 3080 Mobile more than double the bandwidth.

The clock behavior shows a generational shift. The RTX 3080 Mobile runs at a base of 1110 MHz and a boost of 1545 MHz. The Quadro K5200 sits much lower, with a base of 667 MHz and a boost of 771 MHz. Compute throughput reflects this: the RTX 3080 Mobile reaches 18.98 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro K5200 manages 3.553 TFLOPS FP32. The RTX 3080 Mobile also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (18.98 TFLOPS), whereas the Quadro K5200 has no listed FP16 performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests, both decisively won by the RTX 3080 Mobile. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3080 Mobile scores 104,831 versus 19,024 for the Quadro K5200. The delta of 451% means the newer card delivers roughly five and a half times the raw compute throughput in this workload. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a full generational leap.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains enormous. The RTX 3080 Mobile scores 104,066, while the Quadro K5200 reaches 20,180. The 415.7% delta reflects the same underlying performance disparity. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the RTX 3080 Mobile's Ampere architecture handles it with far greater efficiency than Kepler.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The RTX 3080 Mobile averages 23,628 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro K5200 averages 19,602. The delta between these averages is roughly 20.5%, which is smaller than the head-to-head deltas. This is because the RTX 3080 Mobile has many more recorded benchmarks, including several Passmark tests where its scores vary widely. The Quadro K5200 only has two recorded benchmarks in the database, both being the Geekbench tests listed above.

The nearest rival data places each card in context. The RTX 3080 Mobile sits between the GeForce GTX TITAN Z (23,736, 0.5% higher) and the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile (23,518, 0.5% lower). The Quadro K5200 sits between the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, 0.2% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, 0.8% higher). The RTX 3080 Mobile competes with high-end desktop cards and newer mobile parts, while the Quadro K5200 finds itself near mid-range desktop GPUs from a later era.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 8 nm for the RTX 3080 Mobile versus 28 nm for the Quadro K5200. Transistor count is 17,400 million versus 7,080 million. Die size is 392 mm² versus 561 mm², meaning the RTX 3080 Mobile packs far more transistors into a smaller area.

Shading units are 6144 on the RTX 3080 Mobile versus 2304 on the Quadro K5200. Texture mapping units are identical at 192 each. Raster output units differ: 96 on the RTX 3080 Mobile versus 48 on the Quadro K5200. The RTX 3080 Mobile adds 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores; the Quadro K5200 has none.

Pixel rate is 148.3 GPixel/s for the RTX 3080 Mobile versus 37.01 GPixel/s for the Quadro K5200. Texture rate is 296.6 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 18.98 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS. FP16 is listed only for the RTX 3080 Mobile at 18.98 TFLOPS.

Power draw differs significantly: the RTX 3080 Mobile is rated at 115 W TDP, while the Quadro K5200 draws 150 W. The Quadro K5200 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The RTX 3080 Mobile has no power connectors listed, as it is a mobile part with portable-device-dependent outputs. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 3080 Mobile versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro K5200.

The Quadro K5200 has physical dimensions: 267 mm length (10.5 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches). The RTX 3080 Mobile has no listed dimensions. Display outputs differ: the RTX 3080 Mobile is portable-device dependent, while the Quadro K5200 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Release dates are far apart: the RTX 3080 Mobile launched on 2021-01-11, while the Quadro K5200 launched on 2014-07-21. The RTX 3080 Mobile's predecessor is the GeForce 20 Mobile series; the Quadro K5200's predecessor is Quadro Fermi, with Quadro Maxwell as its successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the RTX 3080 Mobile outperforms the Quadro K5200 in every recorded benchmark. The RTX 3080 Mobile wins both head-to-head tests with deltas of 451% and 415.7% in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, respectively. Its average benchmark score is 20.5% higher, and it sits five percentile points higher in the global GPU ranking.

The Quadro K5200 is not a competitive option against this particular RTX 3080 Mobile in raw performance. Its only advantages are physical: lower TDP is actually on the RTX 3080 Mobile's side (115 W versus 150 W), and the Quadro K5200 has a fixed dual-slot form factor with standard display outputs. The RTX 3080 Mobile, being a mobile part, relies on the host device for its outputs.

For anyone choosing between these two based on the database alone, the RTX 3080 Mobile is the stronger performer in every measurable way. The Quadro K5200 might be relevant for legacy workstation compatibility, but no benchmark in the database supports choosing it over the RTX 3080 Mobile on performance grounds.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3080 Mobile wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 104,831 dwarfs the Quadro K5200's 19,024, indicating far superior raw throughput for tasks like rendering, physics simulation, and general-purpose GPU compute. The Vulkan result of 104,066 versus 20,180 points to strength in modern graphics APIs, which matters for current games and newer professional applications.

The RTX 3080 Mobile also wins in memory bandwidth: 448.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. This benefits texture-heavy scenes, high-resolution rendering, and large dataset processing. Its 96 ROPs versus 48 ROPs gives it an edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios, and its 48 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the Kepler card cannot perform at all.

The Quadro K5200 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its strengths are limited to physical characteristics: it is a dual-slot card with known dimensions (267 mm length, 111 mm height), standard display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), and a 1x 6-pin power connector. It also has a lower transistor density due to its older process, which is not a performance advantage.

For use-case selection, the RTX 3080 Mobile suits any workload requiring modern API support, high compute throughput, or ray tracing. The Quadro K5200 might serve in legacy systems where Kepler-era driver behavior or fixed workstation outputs are required, but the recorded data shows no performance scenario where it surpasses the RTX 3080 Mobile.