Quadro 6000 vs Quadro K5200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5200 and Quadro 6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K5200
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
15.87
+128%

K5200 outperforms 6000 by a whopping 128% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking341556
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.210.16
Power efficiency7.252.34
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK110BGF100
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)10 December 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,699.74 $4,399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K5200 has 1281% better value for money than Quadro 6000.

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 cores2304448
Core clock speed667 MHz574 MHz
Boost clock speed771 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,080 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt204 Watt
Texture fill rate148.032.14
Floating-point processing power3.553 TFLOPS1.028 TFLOPS
ROPs4848
TMUs19256

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm248 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz747 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.3 GB/s143.4 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA3.52.0

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.

Quadro K5200 15.87
+128%
Quadro 6000 6.97

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.

Quadro K5200 6112
+128%
Quadro 6000 2685

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro K5200 19280
+95.7%
Quadro 6000 9850

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro K5200 65
+62.5%
Quadro 6000 40

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.87 6.97
Recency 22 July 2014 10 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 204 Watt

Quadro K5200 has a 127.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 36% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 6000 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 K5200
Quadro K5200
NVIDIA Quadro 6000
Quadro 6000

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.


3.8 42 votes

Rate Quadro K5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 40 votes

Rate Quadro 6000 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.