GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 represent two distinct eras of professional mobile graphics, separated by roughly seven years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data reveals a decisive generational shift, but the specifics of that shift, where the gains are largest and what the older card still manages to do, paint a more nuanced picture than a simple "newer is better" summary.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is stark, with the RTX A4000 Mobile winning both available benchmarks by overwhelming margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A4000 Mobile scores 97,178 against the Quadro K5200's 19,024, a delta of 410.8%. This is not an incremental improvement; it is a fivefold increase in raw compute throughput. The gap suggests a fundamental difference in how each GPU executes parallel workloads, with the newer architecture delivering far more instructions per clock and per watt.

The Vulkan result tells a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. The RTX A4000 Mobile posts 73,002 while the Quadro K5200 manages 20,180, a delta of 261.8%. Vulkan is a lower-level API that exposes modern hardware features directly to the developer, and the fact that the RTX A4000 Mobile still triples the older card's score indicates that the performance advantage is not merely a driver optimization artifact, it reflects genuine hardware capability.

What is notable is the absolute absence of any benchmark where the Quadro K5200 wins. In the two tests available, the wins column is 2 for the RTX A4000 Mobile and 0 for the Quadro K5200. The delta percentages are so large that they border on categorically different performance tiers. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the RTX A4000 Mobile sits at 21,379 while the Quadro K5200 is at 19,602, but that average is dragged down by the fact that the newer card has nine benchmark entries including several low-scoring legacy DirectX tests, whereas the older card only has two high-level compute tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RTX A4000 Mobile is the superior performer in every measured category. If the choice is purely about compute capability, the RTX A4000 Mobile wins outright. Its 66th percentile ranking among all GPUs versus the Quadro K5200's 64th percentile does not fully capture the scale of the head-to-head deltas, but it does confirm that the newer card sits in a higher overall performance tier.

For users whose workloads rely on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, which includes many scientific, rendering, and machine-learning tasks, the RTX A4000 Mobile is the only rational choice. The Quadro K5200's 19,024 OpenCL score is roughly comparable to the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237) or the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (21,629), placing it in a performance bracket that the RTX A4000 Mobile utterly demolishes.

However, the Quadro K5200 is not without a niche. Its 64th percentile ranking, while lower, is still respectable, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19,410). For legacy software that predates modern APIs, or for systems where the older card's specific feature set is required, it remains a functional option. But from a pure performance-per-benchmark perspective, the verdict is a clean sweep for the RTX A4000 Mobile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs explains the benchmark results. The RTX A4000 Mobile is built on the GA104 chip using Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die. The Quadro K5200 uses the GK110B chip with Kepler architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, containing 7,080 million transistors across a larger 561 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 44.4 million transistors per mm² for the Ampere part versus 12.6 million for Kepler.

The compute resources are equally divergent. The RTX A4000 Mobile fields 5,120 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. The Quadro K5200 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. While the older card has more TMUs, the newer card more than doubles the shading unit count and nearly doubles the ROP count. The RTX A4000 Mobile also adds 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Kepler design.

Clock speeds compound the core count advantage. The RTX A4000 Mobile runs at a 1,140 MHz base and 1,680 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5200 is limited to 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost. This combination of more cores and higher clocks yields a FP32 throughput of 17.20 TFLOPS for the RTX A4000 Mobile versus 3.553 TFLOPS for the Quadro K5200. The pixel rate is 134.4 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 268.8 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s.

Memory technology also differs fundamentally. The RTX A4000 Mobile uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5200 also has 8 GB, but of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, yielding only 192.3 GB/s. The effective memory clock is 12 Gbps for the newer card versus 6 Gbps for the older one. The power envelope tells a surprising story: the RTX A4000 Mobile is rated at 115 W TDP despite its massive performance lead, while the Quadro K5200 draws 150 W. This efficiency gain comes directly from the 8 nm process versus the older 28 nm node.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile scores 97,178 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 410.8% higher than the Quadro K5200's 19,024. This represents a roughly fivefold performance advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro K5200 win any benchmarks against the RTX A4000 Mobile?

A: No. In the two available head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RTX A4000 Mobile wins both. The win count is 2 for the RTX A4000 Mobile and 0 for the Quadro K5200.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile has 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR6 memory, exactly double the 192.3 GB/s of the Quadro K5200's GDDR5 memory. Both use an 8 GB capacity on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile packs 44.4 million transistors per mm², while the Quadro K5200 has 12.6 million per mm². The newer card achieves this on a smaller 392 mm² die versus the older card's 561 mm².

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX A4000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). The newer card also has a newer Vulkan version at 1.4 versus 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile has 5,120 shading units, which is more than double the Quadro K5200's 2,304. The newer card also runs at a higher boost clock of 1,680 MHz versus 771 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 Mobile wins in every scenario where modern compute performance matters. OpenCL-heavy workloads like video encoding, physics simulations, and GPU-accelerated databases will see the full 410.8% advantage. Vulkan-based rendering engines, including many modern game engines and real-time visualization tools, benefit from the 261.8% lead. The 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores open up workloads that the Quadro K5200 cannot even attempt, such as hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference.

The Quadro K5200's only theoretical wins are in scenarios where its specific legacy characteristics are mandatory. Its 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs might be required for very old display setups that lack modern connector support. Its 150 W TDP and dual-slot cooler design, while less efficient, might be preferable in a desktop workstation with ample cooling and no power constraints. The 450 W suggested PSU requirement is a known quantity, whereas the RTX A4000 Mobile's portable-device-dependent display outputs are less predictable.

For mobile workstations, the RTX A4000 Mobile is the clear winner: lower TDP (115 W vs 150 W), no power connectors required, and PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. For fixed-function legacy pipelines that rely on Kepler-era driver behavior, the Quadro K5200 retains a narrow compatibility edge, but that is a software ecosystem consideration, not a hardware performance one.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 8 nm (Samsung) for the RTX A4000 Mobile versus 28 nm (TSMC) for the Quadro K5200. Transistor count is 17,400 million versus 7,080 million, with die sizes of 392 mm² and 561 mm² respectively. The RTX A4000 Mobile has a base clock of 1,140 MHz and boost of 1,680 MHz, against the Quadro K5200's 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost.

Memory type is GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective for the newer card versus GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective for the older one. Bandwidth is 384.0 GB/s compared to 192.3 GB/s. The shading units are 5,120 versus 2,304, TMUs are 160 versus 192, and ROPs are 80 versus 48. The RTX A4000 Mobile adds 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores; the Quadro K5200 has none. Pixel rate is 134.4 GPixel/s versus 37.01 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 268.8 GTexel/s versus 148.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 17.20 TFLOPS versus 3.553 TFLOPS, and the RTX A4000 Mobile supports FP16 at 17.20 TFLOPS (1:1) while the Quadro K5200 has no FP16 capability.

TDP is 115 W for the RTX A4000 Mobile versus 150 W for the Quadro K5200. The older card is dual-slot with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the newer card has no power connectors and no PSU suggestion. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the RTX A4000 Mobile versus 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro K5200. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.2.175. The Quadro K5200 has physical dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the RTX A4000 Mobile lists no dimensions.