NVIDIA P106-100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves little room for ambiguity in this pairing. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA P106-100 claims victory in both instances, with margins that are substantial rather than incidental.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P106-100 scores 35,951, while the Quadro K5200 manages 19,024. This translates to an 89% advantage for the P106-100, a near-doubling of raw compute throughput in this particular workload. The delta is so large that it suggests architectural efficiency differences far outweigh any simple core-count arithmetic.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower gap. The P106-100 posts 32,897 against the K5200's 20,180, giving the newer card a 63% lead. Vulkan is a modern API that can expose different strengths in each architecture, yet the P106-100 still maintains a decisive edge here.

Looking at the overall averages, the P106-100 carries an average benchmark score of 23,249 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro K5200 averages 19,602, sitting in the 64th percentile. This means the P106-100 lands roughly 19% higher in average score, but more importantly, its percentile placement reflects a broader competitive position: it outperforms a larger fraction of the GPU landscape.

The nearest rivals for each card provide additional context. The P106-100 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700, and within 0.1% of both the AMD Radeon RX 6600M and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X. Its average score is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, with a delta of 0%. The Quadro K5200, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD FirePro D300 (0.2% apart), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (0.8% apart), and sits 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB. Notably, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX is 1% behind the K5200 in this database, an odd quirk of the recorded scores that underscores how benchmark averages can compress very different hardware into similar numeric bands.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of NVIDIA design philosophy, and the silicon itself tells a clear story of progression.

The P106-100 uses the GP106 chip, built on TSMC's 16 nm process. It packs 4,400 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, fabricated on TSMC's older 28 nm node, with 7,080 million transistors spread across a much larger 561 mm² die. Its density is just 12.6 million per square millimeter. The process shrink is the headline: the P106-100 achieves comparable or better performance with roughly 38% fewer transistors, purely by packing them more efficiently.

Clock speeds amplify the difference. The P106-100 runs at a 1506 MHz base clock and boosts to 1709 MHz. The Quadro K5200 idles along at 667 MHz base with a 771 MHz boost. That is more than a 2x gap in raw clock frequency, and it explains why the P106-100 can post dramatically higher scores despite having fewer shaders. The P106-100 has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The K5200 counters with 2304 shading units and 192 TMUs, but also 48 ROPs. More cores at lower clocks lose to fewer cores at much higher clocks in these tests.

Memory configurations differ as well. The P106-100 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 192.3 GB/s. The bandwidth figures are effectively identical, despite the different bus widths, because the P106-100's memory runs at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus the K5200's 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Capacity favors the K5200, but throughput does not.

The API support also reflects generational gaps. The P106-100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The older card is one feature level behind on DirectX and trails on Vulkan revision. The P106-100 also reports FP16 performance at 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the K5200 lists no FP16 capability at all, a hint that the Kepler architecture never prioritized half-precision workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is one-sided, but the use-case split is not entirely without nuance.

The P106-100 wins every measured compute benchmark, and by wide margins. In OpenCL, its 89% advantage signals that general-purpose GPU compute, the kind of workloads that OpenCL accelerates, heavily favors the Pascal architecture. The same holds for Vulkan, where the 63% lead points to modern API efficiency. For anyone running heterogeneous compute tasks, machine learning inference, or graphics workloads through current-generation APIs, the P106-100 is the clear choice based on the numbers.

The Quadro K5200 does have one tangible advantage: memory capacity. At 8 GB versus 6 GB, it offers 33% more VRAM. For datasets that exceed 6 GB, the K5200 can hold more data on-card, potentially avoiding PCIe transfers. This is purely a capacity argument, not a speed argument, since the bandwidth figures are nearly identical. The K5200 also carries display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the P106-100 has none. For any task requiring video output, the K5200 is the only option that can physically drive a monitor.

The P106-100's lack of display outputs makes it a compute-only device, a mining-oriented card from the "Mining GPUs" generation. The K5200, as a Quadro professional GPU, is designed for workstation use with multiple display connections. If the workflow requires visualization or multi-monitor setups, the K5200 wins by default, not on raw performance but on functional capability.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA P106-100 averages 23,249 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 averages 19,602. The P106-100 sits in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, the K5200 in the 64th.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The P106-100 scores 32,897 versus the K5200's 20,180, a 63% advantage for the P106-100.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 have more memory bandwidth?

A: No. The K5200 has 192.3 GB/s, and the P106-100 has 192.2 GB/s. They are effectively equal, despite the K5200 using a wider 256-bit bus versus the P106-100's 192-bit bus.

Q: Can the P106-100 drive a display?

A: No. It has no display outputs. The K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: What is the DirectX feature level difference?

A: The P106-100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), meaning the P106-100 is one feature level higher.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units, compared to the P106-100's 1280. However, the P106-100's much higher clock speeds (1709 MHz boost versus 771 MHz boost) override this core count disadvantage in all recorded benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Process node: P106-100 is 16 nm, K5200 is 28 nm
• Transistors: P106-100 has 4,400 million, K5200 has 7,080 million
• Die size: P106-100 is 200 mm², K5200 is 561 mm²
• Transistor density: P106-100 is 22.0M / mm², K5200 is 12.6M / mm²
• Base clock: P106-100 is 1506 MHz, K5200 is 667 MHz
• Boost clock: P106-100 is 1709 MHz, K5200 is 771 MHz
• Memory clock: P106-100 is 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective), K5200 is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: P106-100 is 6 GB, K5200 is 8 GB
• Memory bus width: P106-100 is 192-bit, K5200 is 256-bit
• Shading units: P106-100 has 1280, K5200 has 2304
• TMUs: P106-100 has 80, K5200 has 192
• Pixel rate: P106-100 is 82.03 GPixel/s, K5200 is 37.01 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: P106-100 is 136.7 GTexel/s, K5200 is 148.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: P106-100 is 4.375 TFLOPS, K5200 is 3.553 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: P106-100 is 68.36 GFLOPS, K5200 is not listed
• TDP: P106-100 is 120 W, K5200 is 150 W
• Suggested PSU: P106-100 is 300 W, K5200 is 450 W
• Bus interface: P106-100 is PCIe 1.0 x16, K5200 is PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: P106-100 has none, K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX support: P106-100 is 12 (12_1), K5200 is 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: P106-100 is 1.4, K5200 is 1.2.175
• Dimensions: P106-100 is 250 mm long, K5200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high
• Release date: P106-100 launched 2017-06-18, K5200 launched 2014-07-21
• Predecessor: P106-100 has none listed, K5200 has Quadro Fermi
• Successor: P106-100 has none listed, K5200 has Quadro Maxwell

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on performance: the NVIDIA P106-100 is the faster card in every recorded benchmark. Its 89% OpenCL lead and 63% Vulkan lead are not marginal victories; they are generational leaps. The 16 nm Pascal architecture, with its 1709 MHz boost clock, simply outruns the 28 nm Kepler chip that tops out at 771 MHz. The K5200's larger shader count and wider memory bus cannot compensate for the clock speed disparity.

However, the pick depends entirely on the use case. The P106-100 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any workstation role that requires visual output. It is a compute-only device, and its 6 GB memory capacity is lower than the K5200's 8 GB. For pure compute workloads that fit within 6 GB, the P106-100 is the overwhelming choice, both on performance and on power efficiency (120 W TDP versus 150 W).

The K5200 is the card for anyone who needs display connectivity, larger frame buffers, or PCIe 3.0 bandwidth. It offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, and its 8 GB memory can handle larger datasets that would spill over the P106-100's 6 GB limit. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is also two generations newer than the P106-100's PCIe 1.0 x16, which could matter for data transfer in systems that support the faster standard.

The percentile data confirms the broader picture. The P106-100 at the 68th percentile and the K5200 at the 64th are both mid-tier cards, but the P106-100 stands clearly above in raw throughput. For anyone building a compute box without display requirements, the P106-100 is the obvious pick. For anyone needing a professional workstation card with monitor support, the K5200 is the only one that fits, despite its lower scores. The benchmark database suggests performance favors the newer card, but functionality favors the older one, and the correct choice is dictated by the task at hand.