NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA TITAN Xp Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and NVIDIA TITAN Xp represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by nearly three years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison is nuanced by their different intended roles: professional workstation rendering versus high-end desktop compute. The Quadro K5200, built on the Kepler architecture, is a relic of the 28 nm process era, while the TITAN Xp, on Pascal, leverages the 16 nm node to deliver substantially higher throughput. Benchmark results indicate the TITAN Xp dominates in raw compute, but the Quadro retains relevance in specific legacy professional contexts. This analysis examines the head-to-head data, architectural divergence, and what these numbers mean for potential users.

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN Xp scores 72,585, while the Quadro K5200 scores 19,024. The TITAN Xp is 73.8% faster in this test, according to the head-to-head deltaPct.

Q: Which GPU shows a larger margin in the Vulkan API benchmark?

A: The TITAN Xp again leads decisively, scoring 87,180 versus the Quadro’s 20,180. The deltaPct of -76.9% in the head-to-head data indicates the Quadro trails by that margin.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU, and how do they rank relative to all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K5200 has an average benchmark score of 19,602, and the TITAN Xp has an average of 19,177. Both GPUs sit at the 64th percentile among all GPUs, per the percentileVsAllGpus field.

Q: Who are the closest rivals to the Quadro K5200, and by what margins?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro D300 (avg score 19,637, delta -0.2%), AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, -0.8%), AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410, 1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB (19,334, 1.4%). The Quadro’s average score is within 1.4% of all these cards.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the TITAN Xp based on average score?

A: The TITAN Xp’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 (avg 19,164, delta 0.1%), NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19,089, 0.5%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, 0.7%), and AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0.7%). The TITAN Xp is essentially tied with these cards, with a maximum delta of 0.7%.

Q: In the head-to-head benchmarks, how many tests does each GPU win?

A: The data records zero wins for the Quadro K5200 and two wins for the TITAN Xp across the available head-to-head tests.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA TITAN Xp is the superior performer in the tested workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by overwhelming margins—73.8% in OpenCL and 76.9% in Vulkan. For any user prioritizing raw compute throughput in modern APIs, the TITAN Xp is the clear choice. Its architecture, with 3,840 shading units and 12.15 TFLOPS FP32 performance, is in a different class than the Quadro’s 2,304 shading units and 3.553 TFLOPS. The TITAN Xp also offers more memory (12 GB vs 8 GB) and significantly higher bandwidth (547.6 GB/s vs 192.3 GB/s), which directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

However, the Quadro K5200 is not without a niche. Its average benchmark score of 19,602 is slightly higher than the TITAN Xp’s 19,177, despite losing the head-to-head tests. This suggests the Quadro may perform competitively in other, unlisted benchmark scenarios. Its status as a professional Quadro card, with dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a lower 150 W TDP, makes it suitable for legacy workstation environments where power draw and specific display configurations matter. The TITAN Xp, with its 250 W TDP and single HDMI plus three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, targets a different user base. The data suggests the TITAN Xp for modern compute tasks; the Quadro for specialized professional setups where its specific feature set and lower power profile are prioritized. Given its launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, the TITAN Xp was positioned as a premium product, and the performance gap justifies that positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a complete sweep for the TITAN Xp, but the magnitude of the wins is worth examining. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN Xp scores 72,585 against the Quadro’s 19,024. The deltaPct of -73.8% means the Quadro’s score is 73.8% lower than the TITAN Xp’s. This is not a marginal difference; it is a multi-generational leap. The TITAN Xp’s Pascal architecture, with a 1,405 MHz base clock and 1,582 MHz boost clock, dwarfs the Quadro’s 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. The higher clock speeds alone would account for a significant portion of this gap, but the TITAN Xp also has 67% more shading units (3,840 vs 2,304).

The Vulkan benchmark shows an even wider chasm. The TITAN Xp posts 87,180, while the Quadro manages 20,180. The head-to-head deltaPct is -76.9%, indicating the Quadro trails by more than three-quarters. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API that scales well with parallel hardware, which explains why the TITAN Xp’s superior architecture shines here. The Quadro’s Kepler architecture, with its DirectX 12 (11_1) support, is less optimized for such workloads. The texture rate difference is telling: the TITAN Xp delivers 379.7 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 148.0 GTexel/s. This 2.6x advantage in texture throughput directly translates to higher fill rates in graphics-heavy Vulkan scenes.

It is also worth noting the pixel rate disparity. The TITAN Xp achieves 151.9 GPixel/s, while the Quadro manages 37.01 GPixel/s. This 4.1x difference in pixel throughput is the fundamental reason for the TITAN Xp’s dominance in these benchmarks. The Quadro’s 48 ROPs are simply outmatched by the TITAN Xp’s 96 ROPs. While the Quadro’s average benchmark score of 19,602 is slightly higher than the TITAN Xp’s 19,177, this is an artifact of different benchmark suites. In the two tests where both cards were measured directly, the TITAN Xp is overwhelmingly superior.

Specification Differences

The specifications diverge sharply across nearly every measurable category. The process node is a primary differentiator: the Quadro uses a 28 nm process, while the TITAN Xp uses a 16 nm process. This allows the TITAN Xp to pack 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, whereas the Quadro fits 7,080 million transistors into a larger 561 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 25.1M / mm² for the TITAN Xp versus 12.6M / mm² for the Quadro.

Clock speeds are another major gap. The Quadro has a base clock of 667 MHz and a boost of 771 MHz, while the TITAN Xp runs at 1,405 MHz base and 1,582 MHz boost. Memory specifications follow suit: the Quadro offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the TITAN Xp provides 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 547.6 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock also differs, with the Quadro at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and the TITAN Xp at 1426 MHz (11.4 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the TITAN Xp. The Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The TITAN Xp has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This results in a pixel rate of 151.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 379.7 GTexel/s for the TITAN Xp, versus 37.01 GPixel/s and 148.0 GTexel/s for the Quadro. FP32 performance is 12.15 TFLOPS for the TITAN Xp and 3.553 TFLOPS for the Quadro. The TITAN Xp also has FP16 capability at 189.8 GFLOPS (1:64), which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power and physical requirements also differ. The Quadro has a 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The TITAN Xp has a 250 W TDP, requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 600 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with similar lengths (267 mm), but the TITAN Xp is slightly taller (112 mm vs 111 mm) and has a defined width of 40 mm.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The Quadro K5200 is based on the GK110B chip, part of the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. The TITAN Xp uses the GP102 chip, part of the Pascal architecture, and is classified under the GeForce 10 generation. This difference in architecture explains the vast performance gap, as Pascal introduced significant improvements over Kepler in instruction efficiency and clock scaling.

The manufacturing process is the root cause of many differences. The Quadro is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the TITAN Xp uses a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, which is why the TITAN Xp achieves more than double the base clock of the Quadro. The transistor count reflects this: 11,800 million for the TITAN Xp versus 7,080 million for the Quadro, despite the TITAN Xp having a smaller die (471 mm² vs 561 mm²).

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Quadro uses GDDR5 memory, while the TITAN Xp uses GDDR5X. This newer memory type, combined with a wider 384-bit bus, gives the TITAN Xp nearly three times the bandwidth. The API support also shows the generation gap: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the TITAN Xp supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Display outputs differ, reflecting their intended use cases. The Quadro provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, which is typical for professional workstations with legacy monitors. The TITAN Xp offers 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, catering to modern consumer displays. The release dates confirm the generational gap: the Quadro launched in July 2014, while the TITAN Xp arrived in April 2017. Both are end-of-life, but the Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, while the TITAN Xp follows GeForce 900 and precedes GeForce 20.