NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 dominates the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 in every recorded test. The database contains two head-to-head comparisons, and the RTX 4000 wins both, with the K5200 failing to secure a single victory. The margin is substantial and consistent across both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540, while the Quadro K5200 trails far behind with 19,024. This translates to a 74.5% deficit for the K5200, meaning the RTX 4000 delivers approximately four times the compute performance in this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a nearly identical pattern: the RTX 4000 reaches 78,844 versus the K5200's 20,180, again a 74.4% gap. These are not marginal improvements; the RTX 4000 is in a completely different performance tier.

The average benchmark scores confirm this hierarchy, though they also reveal interesting positioning relative to other hardware. The Quadro K5200 has an average score of 19,602, placing it at the 64th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637 (just 0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765 (0.8% ahead). The K5200 also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX by 1% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB by 1.4%. This indicates that the K5200, despite its age, still holds its own against a range of midrange and even some high-end cards in these aggregate metrics.

Meanwhile, the Quadro RTX 4000's average score is 17,789, which sits at the 61st percentile. Its nearest rivals are notably different: the AMD Radeon HD 7790 is 0.7% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 is 0.9% ahead, the AMD Radeon 780M is 1.1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 is 1.4% ahead. This is a curious statistical artifact: the RTX 4000's average is dragged down by its inclusion of several low-scoring DirectX tests (e.g., Passmark DirectX 9 at 205 and DirectX 12 at 52), which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. When focusing on the two shared tests, the RTX 4000's superiority is overwhelming.

The raw scores tell a clear story. In OpenCL, the RTX 4000's 74,540 is roughly 292% higher than the K5200's 19,024. In Vulkan, the RTX 4000's 78,844 is roughly 291% higher than the K5200's 20,180. These deltas are consistent, suggesting a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific optimization.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct eras of NVIDIA's design philosophy. The Quadro K5200 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK110B chip, while the Quadro RTX 4000 employs the Turing architecture with the TU104 chip. This generational leap is immediately visible in the manufacturing process: the K5200 uses a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the RTX 4000 shrinks to 12 nm at the same foundry.

Transistor counts reflect this evolution. The K5200 packs 7,080 million transistors onto a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4000 integrates 13,600 million transistors on a slightly smaller 545 mm² die, achieving a dramatically higher density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. This nearly doubles the transistor density, enabling the RTX 4000 to support features that simply did not exist in the Kepler era.

Clock speeds have also improved substantially. The K5200 operates at a base clock of 667 MHz with a boost of 771 MHz. The RTX 4000 starts at 1005 MHz and boosts to 1545 MHz, a 50% higher base clock and a 100% higher boost clock. Memory clocks tell a similar story: the K5200 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective bandwidth, while the RTX 4000 runs at 1625 MHz with 13 Gbps effective.

The architectural differences extend to the compute cores. Both GPUs feature 2,304 shading units, but the RTX 4000 adds 36 RT cores for ray tracing and 288 tensor cores for AI acceleration, neither of which the K5200 possesses. The texture mapping units differ as well: the K5200 has 192 TMUs, while the RTX 4000 has 144, a reduction that is offset by higher clocks. The render output units increase from 48 on the K5200 to 64 on the RTX 4000.

Memory subsystems are another point of divergence. Both cards use an 8 GB frame buffer with a 256-bit bus, but the K5200 relies on GDDR5 while the RTX 4000 uses GDDR6. This yields a massive bandwidth advantage for the RTX 4000: 416.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s, more than double. The pixel rate jumps from 37.01 GPixel/s on the K5200 to 98.88 GPixel/s on the RTX 4000, and the texture rate climbs from 148.0 GTexel/s to 222.5 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput is where the gap becomes most pronounced. The K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RTX 4000 achieves 7.119 TFLOPS, exactly double, and additionally provides 14.24 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio, a capability the K5200 lacks entirely. The RTX 4000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no workload where the Quadro K5200 outperforms the Quadro RTX 4000. In both shared benchmarks, OpenCL and Vulkan, the RTX 4000 wins decisively. The K5200's strengths are relative to its own era and to other GPUs in its performance bracket, not against the RTX 4000.

The K5200's competitive position is best understood through its nearest rivals. Its average score of 19,602 places it just below the AMD FirePro D300 and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, and just above the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB. This suggests the K5200 remains viable for legacy OpenCL or Vulkan workloads where its Kepler architecture is still supported, and where its 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is sufficient. Its 192.3 GB/s bandwidth and 3.553 TFLOPS are adequate for older professional applications that were optimized for the Kepler generation.

The RTX 4000, by contrast, wins across the board. Its 416.0 GB/s bandwidth, 7.119 TFLOPS FP32, and 14.24 TFLOPS FP16 make it suitable for modern compute tasks, including those leveraging tensor cores for AI inference or RT cores for ray-traced rendering. The DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support ensure compatibility with current and upcoming graphics APIs. Its single-slot design and 1x 8-pin power connector also make it easier to integrate into dense workstation configurations compared to the K5200's dual-slot footprint.

For professional users, the choice is clear. The RTX 4000 is the superior card for any workload that requires raw compute, high bandwidth, or modern API features. The K5200's only advantage lies in scenarios where software is specifically tuned for Kepler hardware and never updated, or where the older card is already owned and the workload does not demand more performance.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro RTX 4000 in OpenCL compared to the Quadro K5200?

A: The RTX 4000 scores 74,540 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K5200 scores 19,024. This is a 74.5% deficit for the K5200, meaning the RTX 4000 is roughly four times faster.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 win any benchmark against the Quadro RTX 4000?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the RTX 4000 wins both. The K5200 has zero wins.

Q: What are the key differences in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s. The RTX 4000 also uses 8 GB but with GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, delivering 416.0 GB/s, which is more than double.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 4000 have hardware ray tracing or AI acceleration?

A: Yes, the RTX 4000 includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. The K5200 has neither, as it is based on the older Kepler architecture.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of compute throughput?

A: The K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RTX 4000 delivers 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 and 14.24 TFLOPS of FP16, making it twice as fast in FP32 and offering FP16 support the K5200 lacks.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern games and applications?

A: The RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, so the RTX 4000 is better equipped for current software.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 13,600 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 545 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 667 MHz | 1005 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 1545 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1625 MHz, 13 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 416.0 GB/s |

| TMUs | 192 | 144 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 0 | 36 |

| Tensor Cores | 0 | 288 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.01 GPixel/s | 98.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 148.0 GTexel/s | 222.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.553 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None | 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 160 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2018-11-12 |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior GPU in every measurable way. Its OpenCL score of 74,540 and Vulkan score of 78,844 dwarf the K5200's 19,024 and 20,180, respectively, representing a 74.5% and 74.4% advantage. The RTX 4000 doubles the FP32 throughput, offers FP16 compute, includes hardware ray tracing and tensor cores, and more than doubles memory bandwidth. Its 12 nm process node, higher clocks, and modern API support make it the clear choice for any professional workload.

The Quadro K5200, however, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 19,602 places it at the 64th percentile, higher than the RTX 4000's 61st percentile, and it remains competitive with cards like the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB. For users with legacy Kepler-based applications that are no longer updated, or for those who require a dual-slot card with 2x DVI outputs for older display setups, the K5200 can still serve a purpose. Its 8 GB GDDR5 memory is also sufficient for many professional tasks.

But for anyone choosing between these two cards today, the RTX 4000 is the only rational pick. It offers higher performance, lower power consumption relative to its output (160 W TDP versus 150 W, but with more than double the compute), a more compact single-slot design, and future-proofing through DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4000's launch MSRP was 899 USD, which reflects its professional positioning. The K5200, released in 2014, is end-of-life and simply cannot compete with the 2018 Turing architecture. The recorded data leaves no room for debate: the RTX 4000 wins decisively in both head-to-head tests and is the better investment for any modern workstation.