NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along application programming interface lines. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins both recorded tests, but the margin is not uniform. In the OpenCL workload, the K5200 scores 19024 against 17320 for the T400 4 GB, a 9.8% advantage. In the Vulkan workload, the gap widens substantially: 20180 versus 16263, a 24.1% lead.

The K5200 is the stronger compute card in both APIs, but the T400 4 GB is not without a role. The T400 draws only 30 W, needs no auxiliary power connector, and occupies a single slot. The K5200, by contrast, uses 150 W, requires a single 6-pin connector, and takes a dual-slot footprint. That makes the T400 the sensible choice for environments where physical space and power delivery are constrained, even though it loses every recorded benchmark.

The K5200 also wins on memory capacity, carrying 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s. For workloads that scale with memory size rather than raw throughput, the K5200 has twice the capacity. For lighter tasks that fit within 4 GB, the T400's newer memory type offers no bandwidth advantage in the recorded data.

Feature support favors the newer card. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.175, and DisplayPort 1.2. The T400 also has a 2.189 TFLOPS FP16 rate, which the K5200 does not expose in the database. That gives the T400 a functional edge in applications that use half-precision arithmetic, even though the K5200 leads in the two recorded general-purpose tests.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and different design philosophies. The K5200 uses the GK110B chip on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, for a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. Released in July 2014, it belongs to the Quadro Kepler generation.

The T400 uses the TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. Released in May 2021, it belongs to the Quadro Turing generation. The process shrink explains the density difference: the T400 fits more than twice the transistors per area despite having fewer total transistors.

The compute resources are dramatically different. The K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 6x difference in shading units and an 8x difference in TMUs, which directly explains the K5200's higher texture rate of 148.0 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is smaller but still clear: 37.01 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior is inverted. The K5200 runs at a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, while the T400 runs at a 420 MHz base and 1425 MHz boost. The T400's boost clock is nearly double the K5200's, which helps the smaller chip close some of the gap in pixel throughput, where the difference is 1.6x rather than 6x. The T400's pixel rate is held back by only 16 ROPs, while the K5200 has 48.

The FP32 compute figures show the scale of the difference. The K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS, while the T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS, just over a third of the K5200's output. The T400 does offer FP16 at 2.189 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature absent from the K5200's recorded specifications.

Memory architecture also differs sharply. The K5200 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus. The T400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus. The K5200's bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s, more than double the T400's 80.00 GB/s. The T400's memory clock is 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective, while the K5200 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective. The newer GDDR6 standard cannot compensate for the narrow bus.

Physical design follows the performance split. The K5200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, dual-slot, with a 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W power supply. The T400 is single-slot, has no power connector, and suggests a 200 W power supply. Display outputs differ as well: the K5200 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the T400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL test is the closer of the two. The K5200 scores 19024, the T400 scores 17320. That 9.8% lead reflects the K5200's much larger compute core count, though the margin is smaller than the raw shading unit ratio would suggest. The T400's higher boost clock (1425 MHz versus 771 MHz) partially compensates for its 384 shading units versus 2304.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. The K5200 scores 20180, the T400 scores 16263, a 24.1% difference. The K5200's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, while the T400's Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score. That suggests the K5200's larger memory bus and bandwidth help it in Vulkan workloads, while the T400's narrower memory path becomes a bottleneck.

In the database's nearest-rival context, the K5200 sits at the 64th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 19602. Its closest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD FirePro D300 at 19637 is 0.2% slower, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19765 is 0.8% slower, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX at 19410 is 1% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB at 19334 is 1.4% faster. The K5200 is essentially in a dead heat with all four, despite the huge generational gap between some of them.

The T400 sits at the 60th percentile with an average benchmark score of 16792. Its nearest rivals are also close: the AMD Radeon RX 7600S at 16696 is 0.6% slower, the NVIDIA Tesla M4 at 16932 is 0.8% faster, the AMD Radeon HD 7970M at 17019 is 1.3% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 at 17037 is 1.4% faster. The T400's position shows that a low-power Turing card can match much older high-end parts in these synthetic tests.

The average benchmark scores reflect the head-to-head results. The K5200's average of 19602 is 16.7% higher than the T400's 16792. That is a substantial gap, but the T400 achieves it with a fraction of the power draw and physical footprint.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins both recorded benchmarks and leads by 9.8% in OpenCL and 24.1% in Vulkan. It also offers double the memory capacity, more than double the memory bandwidth, and roughly 3.2x the FP32 throughput. For workloads that stress compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or memory capacity, the K5200 is the stronger card.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins on efficiency and physical integration. Its 30 W power draw needs no auxiliary connector, its single-slot design fits in dense systems, and its 200 W suggested power supply requirement makes it compatible with modest platforms. Its newer Turing architecture provides DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, DisplayPort 1.4a, and FP16 support. None of those features appear in the K5200's recorded specifications.

For a workstation that must render large datasets, process high-resolution textures, or run compute workloads that exceed 4 GB, the K5200 is the only choice between the two. Its 8 GB memory and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth provide headroom that the T400 cannot match. The Vulkan margin of 24.1% is especially telling for modern graphics workloads that use that API.

For a system with strict power and space limits, the T400 is the practical option. It loses both benchmarks, but it does so while consuming a fifth of the power and occupying half the slots. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth will handle lighter tasks, and its FP16 capability opens up half-precision workflows.

The percentile positions confirm the separation. The K5200 ranks at the 64th percentile, the T400 at the 60th. The performance band between them is narrow in percentile terms, but the K5200's wins are consistent across both APIs. The T400's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 690, a dual-GPU flagship from an earlier generation, which shows the T400 is competitive with much older high-end hardware, but not with the K5200.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. Within the recorded data, the K5200 is the performance pick, and the T400 is the efficiency pick.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 20180 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB scores 16263. That is a 24.1% lead for the K5200.

Q: How big is the memory capacity difference?

A: The K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6. The K5200 also provides 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth versus 80.00 GB/s for the T400.

Q: Does the T400 have any architectural advantages?

A: Yes. The T400 uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and DisplayPort 1.4a, and offers 2.189 TFLOPS of FP16 compute. The K5200 uses Kepler on 28 nm and supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The K5200 has a 150 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, needs no power connector, and suggests a 200 W power supply.

Q: Where does each card rank among all GPUs?

A: The K5200 is at the 64th percentile with an average benchmark score of 19602. The T400 is at the 60th percentile with an average score of 16792.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The K5200's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro D300, which is 0.2% slower on average. The T400's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7600S, which is 0.6% slower on average.