NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data separates these two NVIDIA workstation cards into distinct performance tiers. In the only directly comparable test, the OpenCL workload, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 wins outright. It scores 19,024 points against the Tesla M4’s 16,932, a 12.4% advantage. That single result defines the entire head-to-head comparison: the Quadro K5200 takes the win, the Tesla M4 does not win any recorded test.

But the database contains more than one benchmark for the Quadro K5200. It also ran a Vulkan test and scored 20,180 points. The Tesla M4 has no Vulkan score in the database, so cross-architecture comparisons in that API are limited to the Quadro K5200’s absolute performance. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19,602, while the Tesla M4’s average sits at 16,932. That is a 2,670-point gap in favor of the Quadro K5200, or roughly 15.8% higher on average.

The percentile rankings reinforce the same picture. The Quadro K5200 sits at the 64th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Tesla M4 sits at the 60th percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, but the Quadro K5200 is clearly the stronger of the two in compute workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context. The Quadro K5200’s closest competitors by average score are the AMD FirePro D300 at 19,637, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT at 19,765, the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX at 19,410, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB at 19,334. The Quadro K5200 trails the FirePro D300 by 0.2%, trails the RX 6650 XT by 0.8%, beats the RX 7900 XTX by 1%, and beats the GTX 1060 3 GB by 1.4%. These are extremely tight margins, all within about a point and a half. The Quadro K5200 therefore lands in a crowded performance cluster where it is essentially interchangeable with several very different cards.

The Tesla M4’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7970M at 17,019, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 at 17,037, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB at 16,792, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT at 17,083. The Tesla M4 trails the HD 7970M by 0.5%, trails the GTX 690 by 0.6%, beats the T400 4 GB by 0.8%, and trails the RX 7600 XT by 0.9%. Like the Quadro K5200, the Tesla M4 sits in a tightly packed range, but at a lower absolute level.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Quadro K5200 is the pick for any workload that stresses OpenCL compute, where it holds a double-digit lead. The Tesla M4 has no recorded wins in any test, so it does not carve out a clear use case from the benchmark data alone. Its lower power envelope and smaller physical footprint might appeal to certain deployments, but the performance numbers do not show any workload where it comes out ahead.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is the faster card. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, it beats the Tesla M4 by 12.4% in OpenCL. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19,602, well above the Tesla M4’s 16,932. The Quadro K5200 also reaches the 64th percentile among all GPUs, four points higher than the Tesla M4’s 60th percentile.

Who should pick the Quadro K5200? Anyone running OpenCL compute workloads where raw throughput matters. The card’s 3.553 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 2304 shading units, and 192.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth give it a clear edge in number-crunching tasks. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory is double the Tesla M4’s 4 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed 4 GB. It also has display outputs, with 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, so it can drive monitors directly.

Who should pick the Tesla M4? The benchmark data does not show a performance reason. It loses the only head-to-head test, and its average score is lower. However, the Tesla M4 draws only 50 W, one-third of the Quadro K5200’s 150 W. It is also a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the Quadro K5200 is dual-slot and requires a 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU for the Tesla M4 is 250 W, versus 450 W for the Quadro K5200. For dense server installations where space and power are constrained, the Tesla M4’s efficiency could be the deciding factor, even though it loses on performance.

The verdict, strictly from the data: the Quadro K5200 wins on compute performance, memory capacity, and display connectivity. The Tesla M4 wins on power draw, physical size, and system power requirements. If the workload fits within the Tesla M4’s capabilities and the deployment prioritizes density and low power, it is a defensible choice. Otherwise, the Quadro K5200 is the stronger performer.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two cards: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Quadro K5200 scores 19,024, and the Tesla M4 scores 16,932. The Quadro K5200 wins by 12.4%. That is the only head-to-head data point, so it carries the full weight of the comparison.

A 12.4% lead in OpenCL is substantial. It is not a marginal difference that could be explained by clock jitter or driver variation. The Quadro K5200’s advantage comes from a much larger compute configuration. It packs 2304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Tesla M4 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K5200 more than doubles the shading unit count and triples the TMU count.

The FP32 throughput numbers tell the same story. The Quadro K5200 delivers 3.553 TFLOPS, while the Tesla M4 delivers 2.195 TFLOPS. That is a 1.358 TFLOPS gap, or about 62% more compute throughput for the Quadro K5200. The texturing rate follows suit: 148.0 GTexel/s for the Quadro K5200 versus 68.61 GTexel/s for the Tesla M4. The pixel rates are closer, with the Quadro K5200 at 37.01 GPixel/s and the Tesla M4 at 34.30 GPixel/s, a difference of less than 8%.

Memory bandwidth is another major divider. The Quadro K5200 has a 256-bit memory bus and delivers 192.3 GB/s. The Tesla M4 has a 128-bit bus and delivers 88.00 GB/s. The Quadro K5200’s bandwidth is more than double, which directly impacts memory-bound OpenCL workloads. The Quadro K5200’s memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) while the Tesla M4’s runs at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), so the Quadro K5200 has both a wider bus and faster memory.

The clock speeds slightly favor the Tesla M4. Its base clock is 872 MHz and its boost clock is 1072 MHz, compared to the Quadro K5200’s 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. But the Tesla M4’s higher clocks cannot compensate for having fewer than half the shading units. The Quadro K5200 wins despite lower clocks because it has far more execution resources.

The nearest rival data adds nuance. The Quadro K5200’s OpenCL score of 19,024 puts it within 1.4% of the GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB, which scores 19,334. It is also within 1% of the RX 7900 XTX at 19,410. Those are modern gaming and enthusiast cards, yet the Quadro K5200 holds its own. The Tesla M4’s OpenCL score of 16,932 puts it within 0.8% of the NVIDIA T400 4 GB at 16,792, a much lower-tier card. The Tesla M4 also trails the GeForce GTX 690 by 0.6%, a dual-GPU card from an earlier generation.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5200. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 19,024 against the Tesla M4’s 16,932, a 12.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Tesla M4 win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The database shows zero wins for the Tesla M4. The Quadro K5200 wins the only head-to-head test, and the Tesla M4 has no other recorded benchmark to offset that loss.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s. The Tesla M4 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 88.00 GB/s. The Quadro K5200 has both double the capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro K5200 has a 150 W TDP, requires a 6-pin power connector, and needs a 450 W suggested PSU. The Tesla M4 has a 50 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: The Quadro K5200 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Tesla M4 has no display outputs.

Q: Where does each card rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro K5200 is at the 64th percentile, while the Tesla M4 is at the 60th percentile. Both are mid-range performers, but the Quadro K5200 ranks higher.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip, built on the Kepler architecture. The Tesla M4 uses the GM206 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the fabrication node is identical. The transistor density is nearly the same as well: 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter for the Quadro K5200, and 12.9 million for the Tesla M4.

The chip sizes differ dramatically. The Quadro K5200’s GK110B die is 561 mm² and contains 7,080 million transistors. The Tesla M4’s GM206 die is 228 mm² and contains 2,940 million transistors. The Quadro K5200’s die is more than twice the area and holds more than twice the transistors. This is the fundamental architectural divide: the Quadro K5200 is a large, full-featured compute chip, while the Tesla M4 is a smaller, efficiency-focused chip.

The generation naming reflects the different product lines. The Quadro K5200 belongs to the Quadro Kepler family, specifically the Kx200 generation. Its predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The Tesla M4 belongs to the Tesla Maxwell family, the Mxx generation. Its predecessor is Tesla Kepler and its successor is Tesla Pascal.

The shading and texture resources differ by a wide margin. The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Tesla M4 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

The API support differs slightly. The Quadro K5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Tesla M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Tesla M4 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, despite being the slower card in compute tests.

The release dates reflect the generational gap. The Quadro K5200 launched on 2014-07-21, while the Tesla M4 launched on 2015-11-09. The Quadro K5200 came first, and the Tesla M4 arrived about sixteen months later. Both are now end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal a clear hierarchy. The Quadro K5200 has 2304 shading units versus 1024 on the Tesla M4. It has 192 TMUs versus 64, and 48 ROPs versus 32. Every execution resource is larger on the Quadro K5200.

The clock speeds are the one area where the Tesla M4 leads. The Tesla M4 runs at 872 MHz base and 1072 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5200 runs at 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. The Tesla M4’s memory also clocks differently: 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the Quadro K5200. But the Quadro K5200’s wider 256-bit bus more than compensates for the slight memory clock deficit.

Memory capacity is a major differentiator. The Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5, the Tesla M4 has 4 GB. Memory bandwidth is 192.3 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s. The pixel rate is 37.01 GPixel/s versus 34.30 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 148.0 GTexel/s versus 68.61 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.553 TFLOPS versus 2.195 TFLOPS. Neither card has recorded FP16 performance.

The physical specifications favor the Tesla M4. It has a 50 W TDP versus 150 W for the Quadro K5200. It is single-slot versus dual-slot. It has no power connectors, while the Quadro K5200 needs a 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W. The Tesla M4 has no recorded dimensions, while the Quadro K5200 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall.

Display outputs are exclusive to the Quadro K5200. It has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla M4 has no outputs. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface.

The production status is end-of-life for both cards. The Quadro K5200 has no launch MSRP in the database, and neither does the Tesla M4, so no pricing information is recorded for either product.