NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and Quadro K6000 are both professional Kepler-generation graphics boards built on the same GK110B chip, but they are configured very differently. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the K6000 taking a decisive lead in every shared benchmark, while the K5200 counters with a significantly lower power draw and a smaller physical footprint. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and use-case implications based strictly on the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 against the K5200’s 19,024. That is a 19.9% advantage for the K6000. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the K6000 hits 25,409, while the K5200 manages 20,180, a 20.6% lead for the K6000. In both metrics, the K6000 is the outright winner, and the margin is substantial—roughly one-fifth faster in each workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the K5200’s average benchmark score is 19,602, placing it at the 64th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro D300, posts an average score of 19,637, which is essentially a statistical tie at a -0.2% delta for the K5200. The K5200 also sits just 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410). This shows that while the K5200 is competitive with a range of modern and older cards, it is not a top-tier performer in absolute terms.

The K6000, despite winning the head-to-head, has a slightly lower average benchmark score of 19,030, which puts it at the 63rd percentile. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6600, scores 19,036—a 0% delta, meaning they are effectively identical in average performance. The K6000 also trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile by 0.1% (19,049) and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m by 0.3% (19,089), while beating the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation by 0.4% (18,954). The apparent contradiction—the K6000 winning the head-to-head but having a lower average score—is explained by the fact that the average includes a Geekbench Metal score of 7,932, which is far lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan results and drags the mean down.

The biggest takeaway from the numbers is consistency. The K6000 does not just win; it wins by roughly the same margin in both OpenCL and Vulkan. This suggests a systemic advantage in raw compute throughput rather than an optimization quirk for one API. The K5200, meanwhile, is competitive with its immediate rivals but cannot close the gap to the K6000.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same fundamental architecture: Kepler, using the GK110B chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 7,080 million and the same die size of 561 mm², resulting in an identical transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The core design is the same, but the configuration differs significantly.

The most striking difference is in the compute resources. The K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster operation units (ROPs). The K5200 is cut down, with 2,304 shading units and 192 TMUs, though it retains the same 48 ROPs. This means the K6000 has 25% more shading units and TMUs, which directly explains its higher fill rates and compute throughput. The K6000’s pixel rate is 54.12 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s for the K5200, and its texture rate is 216.5 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also favor the K6000. It runs at a base clock of 797 MHz and boosts to 902 MHz, while the K5200 is clocked lower at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. The combination of more cores and higher clocks yields a substantial FP32 throughput advantage: the K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS, while the K5200 manages 3.553 TFLOPS. That is a 46% difference in raw floating-point performance, which is the single largest architectural gap between the two.

Memory is another major divider. The K6000 comes with 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s. The memory clock is identical at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth difference is purely a function of bus width. The K6000 offers 50% more memory capacity and 50% more bandwidth.

The power envelope is where the K5200 fights back. It has a TDP of 150 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The K6000 needs 225 W, two 6-pin connectors, and a 550 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with identical dimensions—267 mm in length and 111 mm in height—and both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Display outputs are also the same: 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. API support is identical as well, with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The release dates differ slightly: the K6000 launched on 2013-07-22, while the K5200 came later on 2014-07-21. Both are end-of-life products, and both succeed the Quadro Fermi line and are succeeded by Quadro Maxwell. The K6000 has a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD; the K5200’s launch MSRP is not listed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The K6000 wins on raw performance across the board. In OpenCL, its 23,749 score is 19.9% higher than the K5200’s 19,024. In Vulkan, it is 20.6% higher (25,409 vs 20,180). This makes the K6000 the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that stress FP32 throughput, texture fill, and memory bandwidth. The 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 power and 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth are decisive for tasks like large-scale simulations, high-resolution rendering, or any workload that can saturate the GPU’s compute units. The extra 4 GB of memory (12 GB vs 8 GB) also gives it headroom for larger datasets that exceed the K5200’s capacity.

The K5200 wins on efficiency and system integration. Its 150 W TDP is 33% lower than the K6000’s 225 W, and it requires only a single 6-pin power connector versus two on the K6000. The suggested PSU drops from 550 W to 450 W, which makes the K5200 easier to slot into existing workstations without a power supply upgrade. It also generates less heat, which can be a factor in densely packed systems. The K5200’s 8 GB of memory is still substantial for many professional tasks, and its 3.553 TFLOPS is far from weak—it sits comfortably alongside rivals like the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637 average) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765).

In terms of raw benchmark wins, the K6000 takes both head-to-head tests. The K5200 does not win any of the shared benchmarks. However, the K5200’s lower power draw and simpler power requirements make it the more practical choice for systems where power delivery or thermal headroom is constrained. It is also worth remembering the K5200’s average benchmark score (19,602) is actually higher than the K6000’s (19,030), largely because the K6000’s Metal score of 7,932 is an outlier that pulls its average down. If a workload relies on Metal, the K5200 may actually appear faster in that specific API, though the data only lists the K6000’s Metal score, not the K5200’s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The Quadro K6000, with 5.196 TFLOPS, is 46% higher than the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS. This is due to its 2,880 shading units versus 2,304, plus higher clock speeds (902 MHz boost vs 771 MHz).

Q: How do the memory specs compare?

A: The K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The K5200 has 8 GB on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s. Both run at the same 1502 MHz memory clock.

Q: Is the K5200 more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The K5200 has a TDP of 150 W and needs one 6-pin connector, while the K6000 requires 225 W and two 6-pin connectors. The suggested PSU drops from 550 W to 450 W for the K5200.

Q: What are the benchmark score differences in the head-to-head tests?

A: In OpenCL, the K6000 scores 23,749 vs 19,024 for the K5200, a 19.9% difference. In Vulkan, the K6000 scores 25,409 vs 20,180, a 20.6% difference. The K6000 wins both.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K5200’s average score (19,602) is within 1% of the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637), AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765), AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19,334). The K6000’s average (19,030) is a near-exact match for the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049).

Q: Are the physical dimensions the same?

A: Yes. Both are dual-slot cards measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. They also share the same PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and the same display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2).

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by roughly 20%, offers 46% more FP32 compute, 50% more memory bandwidth, and 50% more memory capacity. For any user prioritizing raw throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the K6000 is the definitive choice. Its 5.196 TFLOPS and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are in a different class from the K5200’s 3.553 TFLOPS and 192.3 GB/s. The K6000 also holds its own against modern rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (-0.1% delta), showing that it remains competitive despite its age.

The K5200 is not without merit. Its 150 W TDP and single 6-pin power connector make it far easier to integrate into existing systems. The 450 W suggested PSU is a lower barrier than the K6000’s 550 W. Its average benchmark score (19,602) is actually higher than the K6000’s (19,030), and it sits at the 64th percentile versus the K6000’s 63rd. This is largely due to the K6000’s weak Metal score, but it does indicate that the K5200 is not a slouch in general-purpose computing. It trades blows with the AMD FirePro D300 and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, making it a solid mid-range professional card.

The choice hinges on workload. If the task is compute-bound and can utilize more than 8 GB of memory, the K6000 is the only option that makes sense. The 19.9% to 20.6% performance delta is too large to ignore. If the system is power-constrained or the workload is light enough to fit within the K5200’s 8 GB frame buffer, the K5200 offers a more efficient package with a lower power draw. But for sheer performance, the K6000 is the winner, and the benchmark data supports that verdict without qualification.