Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 vs Quadro K5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5200 with Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870, including specs and performance data.
K5200 outperforms M GL / 870 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 399 | 441 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.96 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.60 | 15.21 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Vega Kaby Lake-G |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (12 years ago) | 7 January 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 931 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | 1011 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.553 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | no data |
| TMUs | 192 | no data |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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 HD | 45−50
+4.7%
| 43
−4.7%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
+7.1%
| 28
−7.1%
|
| 4K | 16−18
+14.3%
| 14
−14.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 37.77 | no data |
| 1440p | 56.66 | no data |
| 4K | 106.23 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K5200 and RX Vega M GL / 870 compete in popular games:
- Quadro K5200 is 5% faster in 1080p
- Quadro K5200 is 7% faster in 1440p
- Quadro K5200 is 14% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.74 | 12.78 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 7 January 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 65 Watt |
Quadro K5200 has a 15% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX Vega M GL / 870, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 131% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K5200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
