NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060. Both tests are dominated by the newer card. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 4060 scores 95,057 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024, a delta of 80% in favor of the RTX 4060. The gap is nearly fivefold, which points to a fundamental generational leap in compute throughput. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a narrower but still decisive margin: the RTX 4060 posts 48,643 while the Quadro K5200 manages 20,180, putting the RTX 4060 ahead by 58.5%. Vulkan was not available in the Kepler era at the same maturity level, so the Quadro's result there is comparatively respectable, but it still trails by a wide margin.

It is notably the Quadro K5200's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19,602, while the RTX 4060's average is 17,639. This appears contradictory at first glance, but the averages are drawn from different test sets: the Quadro only has two recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the RTX 4060 has ten, including several Passmark legacy DirectX tests that pull its average down. The direct head-to-head results are unambiguous: the RTX 4060 wins both matchups by large percentages.

The individual benchmark profiles also tell a story. The Quadro K5200's OpenCL score of 19,024 places it in a cluster with the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, a 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, a 0.8% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, a 1% difference). That last comparison is striking: the RX 7900 XTX is a flagship-class GPU, yet in this specific OpenCL workload, the Quadro K5200 is only 1% behind it. The Quadro also sits 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19,334). These results suggest the Quadro K5200's raw compute performance remains competitive with much newer hardware in legacy API workloads.

The RTX 4060, by contrast, shows a different competitive landscape. Its average score of 17,639 places it near the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17,666, a 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, a 0.3% difference), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, a 0.5% difference), and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509, a 0.7% difference). These rivals are all older or lower-tier parts, which highlights how the RTX 4060's average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX 9 and DirectX 12 scores (236 and 76, respectively). Its Passmark G3D score of 19,545 is strong, but the legacy API tests are not.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For any modern API, the RTX 4060 is the obvious choice. Its OpenCL score is 80% higher than the Quadro K5200's, and its Vulkan score is 58.5% higher. The RTX 4060 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K5200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). That is a full feature level behind. The RTX 4060's Vulkan support is version 1.4 versus 1.2.175 for the Quadro. If the workload involves current games, compute frameworks, or ray tracing, the RTX 4060 is the only rational pick from this data.

The Quadro K5200, however, is not without merit in narrow circumstances. Its percentile ranking across all GPUs is 64, which is actually higher than the RTX 4060's 61. That ranking is based on the Quadro's two strong benchmark scores, both of which are above the RTX 4060's average. The Quadro K5200 also shows a surprising parity with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX in OpenCL, trailing by just 1%. For legacy OpenCL compute tasks that do not leverage newer instruction sets, the Quadro K5200 can still hold its own.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, the RTX 4060 is the better purchase for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, as it wins both head-to-head tests by massive margins. The Quadro K5200 is only relevant for a user who specifically needs Kepler-era compute behavior, perhaps for compatibility with old software, and who is willing to accept an 80% deficit in OpenCL performance. The RTX 4060's lower TDP (115 W versus 150 W) and lower suggested PSU (300 W versus 450 W) also make it easier to integrate into existing systems. The Quadro K5200's only advantages are its higher percentile rank and its closer proximity to the RX 7900 XTX in one specific test, neither of which outweighs the head-to-head results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4060 uses the AD107 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 5 nm process. It contains 18,900 million transistors on a much smaller 159 mm² die, achieving a density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. That is a 9.4x density improvement, which explains how the RTX 4060 can fit more than double the transistors into less than a third of the silicon area.

The memory subsystems differ as well. The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4060 also has 8 GB, but it uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, and despite the narrower bus, it achieves 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 41% bandwidth advantage for the RTX 4060, driven by the much higher memory clock: 17 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps effective.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 4060 has 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 4060 has fewer TMUs but a higher texture rate (236.2 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s) because its clocks are far higher: base 1,830 MHz and boost 2,460 MHz, versus the Quadro's base 667 MHz and boost 771 MHz. Pixel rate is also much higher on the RTX 4060: 118.1 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s. FP32 throughput is 15.11 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS, a 4.25x difference. The RTX 4060 also supports FP16 at 15.11 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability.

The RTX 4060 adds dedicated hardware that the Quadro K5200 lacks entirely: 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores. These features are absent from the Quadro's specification sheet, meaning any ray tracing or tensor workload is simply not possible on the Kepler part. The RTX 4060 also has a modern display output set: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, versus the Quadro's 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 scores 95,057 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200's 19,024, a difference of 80% in favor of the RTX 4060.

Q: Does the RTX 4060 support ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, the RTX 4060 includes 24 ray tracing cores. The Quadro K5200 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus with GDDR5. The RTX 4060 has 272.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with GDDR6.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter on a 28 nm process. The RTX 4060 has 118.9 million per square millimeter on a 5 nm process.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro K5200 ranks at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX 4060 ranks at the 61st percentile.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The RTX 4060 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4060 wins every direct comparison in the database. In OpenCL, it is 80% ahead. In Vulkan, it is 58.5% ahead. It also has a massive FP32 advantage (15.11 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (118.1 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (236.2 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s), and higher memory bandwidth (272.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s). For any modern workload, from gaming to compute, the RTX 4060 is the clear winner. Its support for ray tracing cores and tensor cores opens up entirely new categories of workloads that the Quadro K5200 cannot handle at all.

The Quadro K5200's wins are narrower and more situational. Its percentile rank of 64 is above the RTX 4060's 61, which indicates that in the specific benchmarks recorded for it, it performs better relative to the GPU universe than the RTX 4060 does relative to its own test set. It also shows a remarkable 1% parity with the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX in OpenCL, suggesting that for certain legacy compute tasks, the Kepler architecture is still competitive. Its 256-bit memory bus and 192 TMUs are structural advantages that could matter in bandwidth-sensitive or texture-heavy legacy workloads, even though the RTX 4060's higher clocks overcome those advantages in most modern tests.

The practical split is this: the RTX 4060 is for anyone running current software, modern APIs, or any workload involving ray tracing, tensor operations, or high-throughput FP32 compute. The Quadro K5200 is for someone maintaining a legacy Kepler environment, where its 28 nm process, GDDR5 memory, and older API support are not liabilities but requirements. For that niche, the Quadro K5200's data shows it can still hold its ground against much newer parts in specific tests. For everyone else, the RTX 4060's 80% and 58.5% head-to-head victories leave no ambiguity.