Quadro P5200 vs RTX 4000 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile and Quadro P5200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RTX 4000 Mobile
2019
8 GB GDDR6, 110 Watt
32.32
+1.4%

RTX 4000 Mobile outperforms Quadro P5200 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking157163
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.413.52
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2021)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameN19E-Q3GP104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date27 May 2019 (5 years ago)11 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Current price$2890 $3894

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 4000 Mobile has 111% better value for money than Quadro P5200.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores25602560
Core clock speed1110 MHz1316 MHz
Boost clock speed1560 MHz1569 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate249.6279.4

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile and Quadro P5200 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed14000 MHz7216 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s230.4 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
G-SYNC support+no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimusno data+
VR Ready+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.56.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

RTX 4000 Mobile 32.32
+1.4%
Quadro P5200 31.86

RTX 4000 Mobile outperforms P5200 by 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

RTX 4000 Mobile 12482
+1.4%
Quadro P5200 12304

RTX 4000 Mobile outperforms P5200 by 1% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RTX 4000 Mobile 25371
+1.1%
Quadro P5200 25100

RTX 4000 Mobile outperforms P5200 by 1% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RTX 4000 Mobile 56250
Quadro P5200 65844
+17.1%

P5200 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by 17% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RTX 4000 Mobile 18849
+2.1%
Quadro P5200 18467

RTX 4000 Mobile outperforms P5200 by 2% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RTX 4000 Mobile 119052
+12%
Quadro P5200 106328

RTX 4000 Mobile outperforms P5200 by 12% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

RTX 4000 Mobile 98
+30.1%
Quadro P5200 75

RTX 4000 Mobile outperforms P5200 by 30% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

RTX 4000 Mobile 144
Quadro P5200 146
+1.1%

P5200 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by 1% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

RTX 4000 Mobile 162
Quadro P5200 193
+19%

P5200 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by 19% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

RTX 4000 Mobile 149
Quadro P5200 206
+38.1%

P5200 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by 38% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

RTX 4000 Mobile 186
Quadro P5200 216
+16%

P5200 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by 16% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

RTX 4000 Mobile 141
Quadro P5200 156
+10.9%

P5200 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by 11% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

RTX 4000 Mobile 62
Quadro P5200 79
+27.1%

P5200 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by 27% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

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 HD106
−22.6%
130
+22.6%
1440p64
+6.7%
60−65
−6.7%
4K49
−22.4%
60
+22.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 87 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60 no data
Battlefield 5 100−110 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 no data
Far Cry 5 70−75 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 125 no data
Forza Horizon 4 130−140 no data
Hitman 3 65−70 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 207 no data
Metro Exodus 95−100 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 75 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60 no data
Battlefield 5 100−110 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 no data
Far Cry 5 70−75 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 90 no data
Forza Horizon 4 130−140 no data
Hitman 3 65−70 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130 no data
Metro Exodus 51 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 143 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 54 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 no data
Far Cry 5 70−75 no data
Forza Horizon 4 130−140 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 121 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 70−75 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 41 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24 no data
Far Cry 5 69 no data
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 no data
Hitman 3 40−45 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 89 no data
Metro Exodus 77 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 33 no data
Hitman 3 24−27 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 28 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10 no data
Far Cry 5 18−20 no data
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 50 no data
Metro Exodus 43 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30 no data

This is how RTX 4000 Mobile and Quadro P5200 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P5200 is 23% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 Mobile is 7% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro P5200 is 22% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.32 31.86
Recency 27 May 2019 11 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 150 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile and Quadro P5200.


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 RTX 4000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro P5200
Quadro P5200

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.


4 27 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 82 votes

Rate Quadro P5200 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.