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
GPU 1
GPU 2
511
467
PassMark - G2D Mark
GPU 1
GPU 2
188
70
Geekbench - OpenCL
GPU 1
GPU 2
2196
7043
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)
GPU 1
GPU 2
1099
926
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)
GPU 1
GPU 2
2715
1450
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)
GPU 1
GPU 2
1099
926
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)
GPU 1
GPU 2
2715
1450
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