NVS 5200M vs Quadro FX 880M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 880M and NVS 5200M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 880M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
0.58

NVS 5200M outperforms FX 880M by a whopping 129% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking12081027
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.143.65
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGT216GF117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4896
Core clock speed550 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors486 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate8.80010.00
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.24 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs1616

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.28 GB/s14.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.15.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.2+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 880M 0.58
NVS 5200M 1.33
+129%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

FX 880M 223
NVS 5200M 511
+129%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

FX 880M 2639
NVS 5200M 4268
+61.8%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD19
+111%
9
−111%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−10%
30−35
+10%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−10%
30−35
+10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−10%
30−35
+10%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

This is how FX 880M and NVS 5200M compete in popular games:

  • FX 880M is 111% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 5200M is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • NVS 5200M is ahead in 32 tests (70%)
  • there's a draw in 14 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.58 1.33
Recency 7 January 2010 1 June 2012
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 25 Watt

NVS 5200M has a 129.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The NVS 5200M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M
NVIDIA NVS 5200M
NVS 5200M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 41 vote

Rate Quadro FX 880M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 148 votes

Rate NVS 5200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.