NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 54% higher core clock speed: 1024 MHz vs 667 MHz
- Around 54% higher boost clock speed: 1188 MHz vs 771 MHz
- Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 90 Watt vs 150 Watt
- Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 643 vs 541
- Around 28% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 60.473 vs 47.147
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.279 vs 3.996
- 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 231.508 vs 115.307
- Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6803 vs 5946
- Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6803 vs 5946
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 20 August 2015 vs 22 July 2014 |
| Core clock speed | 1024 MHz vs 667 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1188 MHz vs 771 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 90 Watt vs 150 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 643 vs 541 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 60.473 vs 47.147 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.279 vs 3.996 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 231.508 vs 115.307 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6803 vs 5946 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6803 vs 5946 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3353 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K5200
- 3x more texture fill rate: 148.0 GTexel / s vs 49.2 billion / sec
- 3x more pipelines: 2304 vs 768
- Around 95% better floating-point performance: 3,553 gflops vs 1,825 gflops
- 4x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
- 1001.3x more memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 6.6 GB/s
- Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6092 vs 5336
- Around 17% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19628 vs 16712
- Around 68% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1278.433 vs 758.865
- Around 68% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 50.08 vs 29.738
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 GTexel / s vs 49.2 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 2304 vs 768 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,553 gflops vs 1,825 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz vs 6.6 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6092 vs 5336 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19628 vs 16712 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1278.433 vs 758.865 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 50.08 vs 29.738 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 vs 3697 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 vs 3697 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K5200
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5336 | 6092 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 643 | 541 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 16712 | 19628 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 60.473 | 47.147 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 758.865 | 1278.433 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.279 | 3.996 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 29.738 | 50.08 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 231.508 | 115.307 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6803 | 5946 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3697 | 3708 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6803 | 5946 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3697 | 3708 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3353 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1862 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 | NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Code name | GM206 | GK110B |
| Launch date | 20 August 2015 | 22 July 2014 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | $1,699.74 |
| Place in performance rating | 540 | 541 |
| Price now | $194.44 | $523.66 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 30.06 | 14.51 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1188 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1024 MHz | 667 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 768 | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,825 gflops | 3,553 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 2304 |
| Texture fill rate | 49.2 billion / sec | 148.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 90 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,940 million | 7,080 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| HDCP | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 7.938" (20.2 cm) | 267 mm |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| SLI options | 2x | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pins | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 105.6 GB / s | 192.3 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.6 GB/s | 6008 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Adaptive Vertical Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| SLI | ||
| Surround | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
ATIRadeon X700 PRO
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3870
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4830
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
NVIDIAGRID K280Q
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K5200
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 Mobile
