NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data available for direct comparison covers two synthetic workloads, and the results are decisive in both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3080 records a score of 152,423 against the K5200’s 19,024. That is a 701.2% advantage, a gap so large it reflects not just a generational leap but a complete change in compute architecture and execution resources. For context, the RTX 3080’s nearest rivals in the database, the NVIDIA P106-100 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, sit within 0.3% of its average score, while the K5200’s closest competitor, the AMD FirePro D300, is only 0.2% away from its average. The two cards occupy entirely different performance tiers, and the head-to-head numbers confirm that the RTX 3080 is not merely faster but operates in a different class of throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 3080 scores 33,620 against the K5200’s 20,180, a 66.6% improvement. While this is a smaller relative gap than the OpenCL result, it is still a commanding lead. The Vulkan test is more sensitive to driver overhead and modern API features, and the RTX 3080’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 gives it an architectural edge in low-level rendering paths. The K5200, limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, cannot exploit the same degree of parallelism in modern workloads. Across both recorded head-to-head tests, the RTX 3080 wins 2, the K5200 wins 0. There is no benchmark in the shared dataset where the older Quadro comes out ahead.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The RTX 3080 carries an average score of 23,172, while the K5200 averages 19,602. The RTX 3080 also ranks at the 68th percentile among all GPUs in the database, versus the 64th percentile for the K5200. That percentile gap is smaller than the raw score gap might suggest, which indicates that the K5200 still holds its own against many modern cards in overall database rankings, but the direct comparison here leaves no ambiguity about which part delivers more compute performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries, nodes, and design generations. The RTX 3080 uses the GA102 chip built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, for a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The K5200 uses the GK110B chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, yielding a density of only 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3080 packs roughly four times the transistor count into a slightly larger die, which explains the massive shader and throughput advantage.

The RTX 3080 is an Ampere architecture part, while the K5200 is Kepler. Ampere brings hardware ray tracing cores (68 on the RTX 3080) and tensor cores (272), neither of which exists on the K5200. The shading unit count tells the story plainly: the RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is a 3.8x difference in shading units and a 2x difference in ROPs. The RTX 3080 also runs at much higher clocks, with a base of 1440 MHz and boost of 1710 MHz, versus the K5200’s 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. Clock speed alone gives the RTX 3080 more than double the execution rate per instruction stream.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RTX 3080 uses 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 192.3 GB/s. The RTX 3080 offers nearly four times the memory bandwidth, which matters for high-resolution textures, large compute datasets, and any workload that saturates memory. The K5200’s memory clock runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the RTX 3080’s memory runs at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective), and the effective data rate advantage is decisive.

The process node and transistor density differences also affect power and thermal behavior. The RTX 3080 has a 320 W TDP and requires a 1x 12-pin power connector with a suggested 700 W PSU. The K5200 has a 150 W TDP, a single 6-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU. The RTX 3080 draws more than double the power, but it also delivers roughly eight times the FP32 throughput (29.77 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS). The efficiency per watt is still heavily in favor of the newer card. The K5200 has no FP16 support listed, while the RTX 3080 provides 29.77 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not sacrifice throughput for reduced precision.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The RTX 3080 delivers 29.77 TFLOPS FP32 against the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS, an 8.4x difference in raw floating-point performance. The RTX 3080 also offers FP16 at the same 29.77 TFLOPS rate, while the K5200 has no listed FP16 capability.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX 3080 uses 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus with 760.3 GB/s bandwidth. The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s. The RTX 3080’s bandwidth is roughly four times higher, and its effective memory clock is 19 Gbps versus 6 Gbps.

Q: Does the K5200 have any modern rendering features like ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The K5200 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 3080 includes 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores, which are required for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features such as DLSS.

Q: What API levels does each card support?

A: The RTX 3080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RTX 3080’s higher DirectX and Vulkan feature levels enable newer rendering paths and better driver utilization.

Q: Which card ranks higher in the database percentile?

A: The RTX 3080 is at the 68th percentile among all GPUs, while the K5200 is at the 64th percentile. The RTX 3080 also has a higher average benchmark score: 23,172 versus 19,602.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life. The RTX 3080 was released on 2020-08-31, and the K5200 was released on 2014-07-21.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 3080 uses the GA102 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process with 28,300 million transistors and a 628 mm² die. The K5200 uses GK110B on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 7,080 million transistors and a 561 mm² die. Transistor density is 45.1M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm². The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 TMUs, and 96 ROPs; the K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 3080 adds 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores; the K5200 has none.

Clock speeds: the RTX 3080 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1710 MHz boost, with memory at 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The K5200 runs at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, with memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 10 GB GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus versus 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is 760.3 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s. Pixel rate is 164.2 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 465.1 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 29.77 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS. The K5200 has no FP16 listing.

Power and connectivity: the RTX 3080 has a 320 W TDP and uses a 1x 12-pin connector with a suggested 700 W PSU. The K5200 has a 150 W TDP, a 1x 6-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU. The RTX 3080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the K5200 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the RTX 3080 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The RTX 3080 is 285 mm long, 112 mm tall, and 40 mm wide; the K5200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with no width listed. Both are dual-slot cards.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The RTX 3080 outperforms the K5200 in every shared benchmark and in every architectural metric that matters for modern workloads. The OpenCL result alone, a 701.2% difference, shows that the K5200 cannot compete in compute-heavy tasks. The Vulkan result, a 66.6% gap, confirms that even in modern API paths, the RTX 3080 holds a decisive edge. The RTX 3080 also has a higher percentile ranking (68th versus 64th) and a higher average benchmark score (23,172 versus 19,602).

The K5200 is not without merits, but they are narrow. Its 150 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU make it far easier to install in older or lower-wattage systems, and its dual DVI outputs may be relevant for legacy display setups. For anyone running current software, the RTX 3080 is the only rational choice. The K5200’s Kepler architecture lacks ray tracing, tensor cores, and modern API support, and its memory bandwidth is less than a third of the RTX 3080’s. The RTX 3080 is the faster card by every recorded measurement.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3080 wins in every scenario where compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or modern API features matter. That includes 3D rendering, GPU compute, machine learning inference (via tensor cores), ray-traced workloads, and high-resolution gaming with large texture sets. Its 760.3 GB/s bandwidth and 29.77 TFLOPS FP32 make it suitable for tasks that would bottleneck the K5200. The 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores add capabilities the K5200 simply does not have. In the database’s head-to-head tests, the RTX 3080 wins both: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

The K5200 wins only in deployment scenarios tied to its power and legacy connectivity. At 150 W with a 6-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, it fits into systems where the RTX 3080’s 320 W TDP and 1x 12-pin requirement would force a PSU upgrade or adapter. Its dual DVI outputs also serve older monitors or professional setups that require DVI signaling. For a workstation that must run on an aging power supply and drive legacy displays, the K5200 remains functional. For any performance-sensitive task, the RTX 3080 is the clear winner, and the recorded data shows no category in which the K5200 outperforms it.