NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 records an average benchmark score of 19602, while the NVIDIA T400 scores 16508. The K5200 sits at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the T400 is at the 60th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two in the OpenCL test?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the Quadro K5200 scores 19024 versus the T400's 17039. That is an 11.6% advantage for the K5200.

Q: Which card wins the Vulkan benchmark, and by how much?

A: The Quadro K5200 wins the geekbench_vulkan test with 20180 against the T400's 15976, a 26.3% lead. This is the K5200's largest margin of victory in the recorded head-to-head data.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a TDP of 150 W and needs a 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, requires no power connectors, and only suggests a 200 W PSU.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The Quadro K5200 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The T400 is a single-slot card, but the database does not list its length or height dimensions.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K5200. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 26.3% margin in Vulkan and an 11.6% margin in OpenCL. Its average score of 19602 also places it in a higher percentile bracket than the T400.

For users who need raw compute performance in professional workloads, the K5200 is the stronger choice by every measured metric. Its 2304 shading units and 192 texture units provide the kind of throughput that the T400's 384 shading units and 24 texture units cannot match.

However, the T400 is not without its own arguments. It draws only 30 W, which is one-fifth of the K5200's 150 W TDP. It requires no external power connector, fits in a single slot, and its suggested PSU is 250 W lower. For systems where power budget and physical footprint are the primary constraints, the T400 is the sensible pick.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof investment. But the data indicates that the K5200 delivers substantially more compute capability, while the T400 offers a far more efficient and compact package. Choose the K5200 for performance, the T400 for low-power deployment in constrained environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two tests, and the Quadro K5200 wins both. The first test, geekbench_opencl, shows the K5200 scoring 19024 against the T400's 17039. That 11.6% delta is a solid but not overwhelming advantage, reflecting the K5200's higher raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads.

The second test, geekbench_vulkan, shows a much larger gap. The K5200 scores 20180, while the T400 manages only 15976. This 26.3% difference is the standout result in the comparison. Vulkan tends to expose architectural efficiencies, and the data suggests the K5200's Kepler design, despite being older, handles the API's low-level execution model far more effectively than the T400's Turing implementation.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the K5200's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 (only 0.2% away) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19765 (0.8% away). The T400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16504, which is essentially tied at 0% delta, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 at 16415, which is 0.6% behind.

The average benchmark score difference between the two cards is 3094 points, which is roughly 18.7% of the T400's average. This is consistent with the head-to-head results: the K5200 is the faster card across the board, with the Vulkan test showing the most pronounced gap.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The Quadro K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the T400 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Memory bandwidth follows suit: 192.3 GB/s for the K5200 versus 80.00 GB/s for the T400.

The K5200's memory clock runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the T400's memory clock is 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). Despite the T400's higher effective data rate, the narrower bus limits its total bandwidth to less than half of the K5200's.

Shader and texture resources show a massive disparity. The K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 37.01 GPixel/s for the K5200 versus 22.80 GPixel/s for the T400. Texture rate is 148.0 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is listed as 3.553 TFLOPS for the K5200 and 1,094.4 GFLOPS (about 1.09 TFLOPS) for the T400. The T400 does have a listed FP16 rate of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), while the K5200's FP16 field is null.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The K5200 has a base clock of 667 MHz and a boost of 771 MHz. The T400 has a much lower base of 420 MHz but boosts to 1425 MHz. The T400's boost clock is nearly double the K5200's, but the K5200's larger execution units compensate.

Power and physical specifications also differ sharply. The K5200 has a 150 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin connector, and is a dual-slot card. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, needs no power connector, and is single-slot. The suggested PSU is 450 W for the K5200 and 200 W for the T400.

Display outputs differ as well: the K5200 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the T400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The K5200 is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 561 mm², accommodating 7,080 million transistors, which yields a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm².

The T400 uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, also from TSMC but on a 12 nm process. The die is 200 mm², containing 4,700 million transistors, giving a density of 23.5 million per mm².

The transistor density difference is notable: the T400 packs nearly twice as many transistors per square millimeter (23.5M versus 12.6M). This is a direct consequence of the smaller process node. However, the K5200's larger die and higher transistor count give it more absolute compute resources.

The K5200 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation and was released on 2014-07-21. Its predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The T400 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation and was released on 2021-05-05. Its predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere.

Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, so ray tracing and AI acceleration are not differentiating factors here. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16.

API support differs slightly. The K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T400's newer architecture provides a more recent DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows exactly two benchmark tests, and the Quadro K5200 wins both. There is no test in the database where the T400 comes out ahead. This makes the performance hierarchy unambiguous: the K5200 is the faster card in every measured workload.

The K5200's largest win is in Vulkan, where it leads by 26.3%. This suggests the card is particularly well-suited to applications that leverage modern graphics APIs with low overhead. Its 26.3% advantage in Vulkan is more than double its 11.6% lead in OpenCL, indicating that the K5200's architecture responds especially well to the Vulkan execution model.

The K5200 is the pick for any workload that prioritizes raw compute throughput, higher memory bandwidth, or larger VRAM capacity. Its 8 GB frame buffer and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for tasks involving large datasets or high-resolution textures. Its 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than triple the T400's 1.09 TFLOPS.

The T400's wins are not in performance but in efficiency and form factor. Its 30 W TDP is a fraction of the K5200's 150 W, making it viable for systems with minimal power delivery. The single-slot design and lack of any power connector mean it can be installed in compact chassis or alongside other expansion cards without space conflicts. The suggested 200 W PSU also makes it compatible with lower-capacity power supplies.

For a workstation tasked with heavy 3D rendering, GPGPU compute, or multi-display professional visualization, the K5200 is the obvious choice. For a low-profile system that needs basic display output or light acceleration with minimal power draw, the T400 serves that role without the K5200's physical and power demands.

The T400 does have a newer API feature set, including DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, which could matter for specific modern software compatibility. But in terms of raw benchmark performance, the K5200 dominates. The T400's FP16 capability (2.189 TFLOPS) is a feature the K5200 lacks entirely, which could benefit workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, but the K5200's FP32 advantage is so large that it remains the stronger general-purpose compute card.