NVIDIA NVS 5200M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA NVS 5200M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA NVS 5200M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 20% higher core clock speed: 672 MHz vs 561 MHz
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 96 vs 72
- Around 59% better floating-point performance: 258.0 gflops vs 162 gflops
- Around 80% lower typical power consumption: 25 Watt vs 45 Watt
- Around 43% higher memory clock speed: 3140 MHz vs 2200 MHz
- Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 511 vs 467
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 188 vs 70
- Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1099 vs 926
- Around 87% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2715 vs 1450
- Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1099 vs 926
- Around 87% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2715 vs 1450
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 17 September 2012 vs 15 June 2009 |
Core clock speed | 672 MHz vs 561 MHz |
Pipelines | 96 vs 72 |
Floating-point performance | 258.0 gflops vs 162 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt vs 45 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 3140 MHz vs 2200 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 511 vs 467 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 188 vs 70 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1099 vs 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2715 vs 1450 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1099 vs 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2715 vs 1450 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
- Around 25% higher texture fill rate: 13.46 GTexel / s vs 10.75 GTexel / s
- 3.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 7043 vs 2196
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 13.46 GTexel / s vs 10.75 GTexel / s |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7043 vs 2196 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA NVS 5200M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA NVS 5200M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 511 | 467 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 188 | 70 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2196 | 7043 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.829 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 189.966 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.539 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.643 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.851 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 222 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1099 | 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2715 | 1450 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 222 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1099 | 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2715 | 1450 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA NVS 5200M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GF108 | GT215 |
Launch date | 17 September 2012 | 15 June 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1513 | 1510 |
Type | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 672 MHz | 561 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 258.0 gflops | 162 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 96 | 72 |
Texture fill rate | 10.75 GTexel / s | 13.46 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt | 45 Watt |
Transistor count | 585 million | 727 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM | MXM-A (3.0) |
Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 25.12 GB / s | 35.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 3140 MHz | 2200 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA |