NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 are both end-of-life professional mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they represent two distinct architectural generations and design philosophies. The data shows a clear, if narrow, overall victory for the newer M4000M, which wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons. However, the K5200 counters with a substantial advantage in memory capacity and raw compute throughput, making the choice between them dependent on the specific workload requirements rather than a single dominant score.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M secures the victory in both recorded performance tests, establishing it as the faster card in the two measured scenarios. Its wins come in the Geekbench OpenCL test (19989 vs 19024, a 5.1% lead) and the Geekbench Vulkan test (20971 vs 20180, a 3.9% lead). These are the only two benchmarks provided, so the M4000M holds a perfect 2-0 record over the K5200. This suggests the Maxwell 2.0 architecture delivers better efficiency and per-clock performance in these general-purpose compute and API-specific workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200, while losing both head-to-head tests, holds advantages in several hardware specifications that are not directly reflected in the Geekbench scores. It offers double the memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB), higher peak FP32 throughput (3.553 TFLOPS vs 2.593 TFLOPS), a higher texture fill rate (148.0 GTexel/s vs 81.04 GTexel/s), and a larger memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s). These specs point toward scenarios where the K5200 could be the better choice, such as working with very large datasets or textures that exceed the M4000M's memory limit. The M4000M, conversely, wins on pixel rate (64.83 GPixel/s vs 37.01 GPixel/s) and power efficiency, with a 100 W TDP versus the K5200's 150 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The M4000M uses the GM204 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the K5200 uses the GK110B chip based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but the chip designs diverge significantly. The GK110B in the K5200 is a much larger and more complex die, containing 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, compared to the M4000M's 5,200 million transistors on a smaller 398 mm² die. This makes the K5200's chip physically larger, but the M4000M has a slightly higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm² for the K5200.

The core configurations also differ substantially. The K5200 packs 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This means the K5200 has nearly double the shading units and TMUs, but fewer ROPs. Clock speeds are also inverted, with the M4000M running at a much higher base and boost clock (975 MHz / 1013 MHz) compared to the K5200 (667 MHz / 771 MHz). The memory subsystems differ as well, with both using GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the K5200 uses faster 6 Gbps effective memory to achieve 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the M4000M uses 5 Gbps effective memory for 160.4 GB/s. The M4000M also supports a newer API set, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the two cards is based on two Geekbench tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M4000M scores 19989 points, while the K5200 scores 19024 points. This results in a 5.1% advantage for the M4000M, a notable margin that indicates better execution of OpenCL workloads despite the K5200's higher theoretical FP32 throughput. The result is somewhat counterintuitive given the K5200's 3.553 TFLOPS rating, but it suggests that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture's scheduling and memory handling are more efficient in practice. The M4000M also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 20971 against the K5200's 20180, a 3.9% lead. This is consistent with the OpenCL result, reinforcing the M4000M's superior performance in modern compute APIs.

When looking at the broader context, the M4000M's average benchmark score of 20480 places it at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5200's average of 19602 places it at the 64th percentile. The M4000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (avg score 20534, delta -0.3%), Intel Arc B570 (avg score 20556, delta -0.4%), and Intel Arc A750 (avg score 20582, delta -0.5%). The K5200's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 (avg score 19637, delta -0.2%), AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (avg score 19765, delta -0.8%), and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (avg score 19410, delta 1%). These deltas show that both cards are competitive with a range of other GPUs, but the M4000M sits slightly higher in the performance hierarchy.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split decision. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is the superior choice, as it wins both head-to-head tests with margins of 5.1% and 3.9%. Its higher clock speeds, better pixel fill rate, and modern architecture make it a more efficient processor for these tasks. The M4000M also offers a lower TDP of 100 W, making it a better fit for systems where power consumption is a concern.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is not without merit. Its 8 GB of memory is double the M4000M's 4 GB, which is a critical advantage for applications that require large frame buffers, such as high-resolution texture rendering or complex 3D modeling scenes. The K5200's higher FP32 throughput (3.553 TFLOPS) and texture fill rate (148.0 GTexel/s) also suggest it could outperform the M4000M in purely compute-bound scenarios that scale with raw shader count, even if the Geekbench tests do not reflect this. The K5200's larger die and transistor count indicate a more powerful chip on paper, but the actual benchmark results favor the M4000M. Therefore, the verdict depends on workload: choose the M4000M for general compute and API performance, and the K5200 for memory-intensive tasks or peak theoretical compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has a higher average benchmark score of 20480, compared to the K5200's 19602. This places the M4000M at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5200 sits at the 64th percentile.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the 4 GB of GDDR5 memory found on the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. The K5200 also has higher memory bandwidth at 192.3 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance rating?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has a higher FP32 rating of 3.553 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is rated at 2.593 TFLOPS. Despite this, the M4000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, indicating better real-world efficiency.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W, is a dual-slot card, and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The M4000M also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K5200 supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20971 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K5200's score of 20180 by a margin of 3.9%. This is one of two head-to-head wins for the M4000M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM204 | GK110B |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 975 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1013 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 5 Gbps effective | 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 80 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.83 GPixel/s | 37.01 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 81.04 GTexel/s | 148.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.593 TFLOPS | 3.553 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Null | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2014-07-21 |

| Length | Null | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Null | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |