NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K5200 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200M 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 Quadro K5200
- 5.5x more texture fill rate: 148.0 GTexel / s vs 26.68 GTexel / s
- 3.6x more pipelines: 2304 vs 640
- 4.2x better floating-point performance: 3,553 gflops vs 853.8 gflops
- 4x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 5012 MHz
- Around 76% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6092 vs 3469
- Around 41% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 541 vs 384
- Around 82% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19628 vs 10787
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5946 vs 4750
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3084
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5946 vs 4750
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3084
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 GTexel / s vs 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2304 vs 640 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,553 gflops vs 853.8 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz vs 5012 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6092 vs 3469 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 541 vs 384 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19628 vs 10787 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5946 vs 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 vs 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5946 vs 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 vs 3084 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 150 Watt
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 150 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 vs 3708 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 vs 3708 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K5200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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 Quadro K5200 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6092 | 3469 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 541 | 384 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19628 | 10787 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.147 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1278.433 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.996 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 50.08 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 115.307 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5946 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3708 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3084 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5946 | 4750 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3708 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3084 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K5200 | NVIDIA Quadro K2200M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |
| Code name | GK110B | GM107 |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 | 19 July 2014 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | |
| Place in performance rating | 541 | 544 |
| Price now | $523.66 | |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 14.51 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 667 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 3,553 gflops | 853.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2304 | 640 |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 GTexel / s | 26.68 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Transistor count | 7,080 million | 1,870 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
| Shader Model | 5 | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K5200 with others
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
ATIRadeon X700 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4830
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAGRID K280Q
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2200M
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950
NVIDIAQuadro K5200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P1000 Mobile
