GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation represent two distinct eras of professional graphics. The K5200 is a Kepler-era workhorse from 2014, while the RTX 2000 Ada is a modern Ada Lovelace card from 2024. Benchmark data shows a decisive generational leap, but the comparison reveals nuanced differences in architecture, features, and raw compute that matter for specific workflows.

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap in compute benchmarks?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is dramatically faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 78,074 versus the K5200's 19,024, a 75.6% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 2000 Ada scores 83,360 versus 20,180, a 75.8% delta.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation offers 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 33% higher than the K5200's 192.3 GB/s. This is despite the RTX 2000 Ada using a narrower 128-bit bus versus the K5200's 256-bit bus, thanks to faster GDDR6 memory.

Q: Do these cards support modern APIs like ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has dedicated RT cores (22) and tensor cores (88). It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The K5200 lacks RT and tensor cores, maxing out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP, less than half of the K5200's 150 W TDP. The RTX 2000 Ada also requires no power connectors, while the K5200 needs a single 6-pin connector.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The K5200's average score is 19,602, sitting near the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, -0.2%) and AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, -0.8%). The RTX 2000 Ada's average is 18,954, close to the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030, -0.4%) and AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, -0.4%).

Q: Which card is physically smaller and more efficient?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is significantly more compact at 168 mm length and 69 mm height, versus the K5200's 267 mm length and 111 mm height. It also uses a 5 nm process versus 28 nm, leading to a much higher transistor density.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting a decade of semiconductor progress. The K5200 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK110B chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older design packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD107 chip on a cutting-edge 5 nm process. It crams 18,900 million transistors into a much smaller 159 mm² die, achieving an extraordinary density of 118.9 million per square millimeter, nearly ten times higher.

This process advantage translates into fundamental capability differences. The K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster output units (ROPs). The RTX 2000 Ada Generation counters with 2,816 shading units (22% more), but fewer TMUs at 88 and the same 48 ROPs. Crucially, the Ada card adds 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the Kepler card cannot handle at all.

Clock speeds also differ dramatically. The K5200 operates at a base of 667 MHz with a boost of 771 MHz, while the RTX 2000 Ada runs at 1,620 MHz base and 2,130 MHz boost, roughly 2.4x and 2.8x higher respectively. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, produces stark compute differences. The RTX 2000 Ada delivers 12.00 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the K5200's 3.553 TFLOPS, a 3.4x improvement. The Ada card also offers FP16 at 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the K5200 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture reflects different design philosophies. The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 1,502 MHz memory clock (6 Gbps effective), producing 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Ada doubles capacity to 16 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 128-bit bus, but the faster 2,000 MHz clock (16 Gbps effective) yields higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s. The Ada card also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the K5200 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a one-sided picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 78,074 against the K5200's 19,024. This represents a 75.6% delta in favor of the newer card, meaning the Ada GPU is over four times faster in this compute workload. The gap is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 2000 Ada scores 83,360 versus 20,180, a 75.8% delta.

These results are not marginal improvements; they are generational leaps. The K5200's OpenCL score of 19,024 places it in the 64th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19,602. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, -0.2% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, +1% delta), showing the K5200 is competitive with mid-range cards of its era.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation, despite its overwhelming victory in these two tests, has a slightly lower average benchmark score of 18,954 and sits in the 63rd percentile. This paradox is explained by its benchmark portfolio: it includes additional tests like PassMark G3D (16,927) and PassMark GPU Compute (7,834), which drag down its average. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030, -0.4% delta) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.5% delta), indicating that in aggregate, the RTX 2000 Ada performs similarly to these cards despite its massive compute advantage in OpenCL and Vulkan.

The head-to-head results show the RTX 2000 Ada wins both available comparisons. The K5200 has zero wins. However, the data also reveals that raw compute performance does not always translate to higher average scores across diverse test suites, suggesting the K5200 may hold its own in certain legacy or specific workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 159 mm² |

| Base Clock | 667 MHz | 1,620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 2,130 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR5 | 16 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2,304 | 2,816 |

| TMUs | 192 | 88 |

| ROPs | 48 | 48 |

| RT Cores | None | 22 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 88 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.01 GPixel/s | 102.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 148.0 GTexel/s | 187.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.553 TFLOPS | 12.00 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 70 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | 168 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2024-02-11 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 649 USD |

The Verdict

The data makes the generational hierarchy unmistakable. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the superior card for modern compute workloads. Its 75.6% lead in OpenCL and 75.8% lead in Vulkan over the K5200 demonstrate a transformative performance advantage. The Ada card also offers double the memory (16 GB versus 8 GB), higher bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 192.3 GB/s), and over 3x the FP32 throughput (12.00 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS). For professionals running compute-intensive applications, ray tracing, or AI inference, the RTX 2000 Ada is the only logical choice.

The RTX 2000 Ada also wins decisively on efficiency and form factor. Its 70 W TDP is less than half the K5200's 150 W, requiring no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU versus 450 W. Its dimensions (168 mm x 69 mm) are roughly 60% of the K5200's length and height, making it suitable for compact workstation builds. The Ada card's 5 nm process and 118.9M transistors per mm² density versus 12.6M / mm² underscores the engineering leap.

However, the K5200 is not without merit in specific contexts. Its average benchmark score of 19,602 slightly exceeds the RTX 2000 Ada's 18,954, and its percentile rank (64th) is marginally higher than the Ada card's 63rd. The K5200's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, +1% delta), a high-end card, suggesting the Kepler GPU still holds competitive ground in certain aggregate workloads. Its 256-bit memory bus and 192 TMUs (versus 88 on Ada) may also provide advantages in texture-heavy or bandwidth-sensitive legacy applications.

For buyers with modern workloads, particularly those leveraging DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, or AI features, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear winner. Its active production status, 2024 release date, and comprehensive feature set make it future-proof. The K5200, released in 2014 and now end-of-life, is only relevant for maintaining legacy systems or specific tasks where its unique memory interface and TMU count provide an edge. The benchmark data is unambiguous: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the superior modern GPU, while the K5200 remains a capable but dated professional card.