Quadro K5200 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Super with Quadro K5200, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1660 Super
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
33.01
+108%

GTX 1660 Super outperforms K5200 by a whopping 108% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking168349
Place by popularity7not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation57.242.48
Power efficiency18.117.24
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTU116GK110B
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date29 October 2019 (5 years ago)22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 $1,699.74

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1660 Super has 2208% better value for money than Quadro K5200.

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 cores14082304
Core clock speed1530 MHz667 MHz
Boost clock speed1785 MHz771 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million7,080 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate157.1148.0
Floating-point processing power5.027 TFLOPS3.553 TFLOPS
ROPs4848
TMUs88192

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 3.0 x16
Length229 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 6-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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB8 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s192.3 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

NVENC+no data
Ansel+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA7.53.5

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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.01
+108%
Quadro K5200 15.84

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • GeekBench 5 OpenCL
    • GeekBench 5 Vulkan
    • GeekBench 5 CUDA

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.

GTX 1660 Super 12719
+108%
Quadro K5200 6103

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.

GTX 1660 Super 62627
+226%
Quadro K5200 19232

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 1660 Super 60424
+202%
Quadro K5200 20024

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 1660 Super 65044
+374%
Quadro K5200 13735

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 HD92
+130%
40−45
−130%
1440p57
+111%
27−30
−111%
4K31
+121%
14−16
−121%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.49
+1607%
42.49
−1607%
1440p4.02
+1467%
62.95
−1467%
4K7.39
+1544%
121.41
−1544%
  • GTX 1660 Super has 1607% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super has 1467% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Super has 1544% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 124
+125%
55−60
−125%
Counter-Strike 2 90
+125%
40−45
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 76
+117%
35−40
−117%
Atomic Heart 91
+128%
40−45
−128%
Battlefield 5 97
+116%
45−50
−116%
Counter-Strike 2 62
+130%
27−30
−130%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+110%
30−33
−110%
Far Cry 5 112
+124%
50−55
−124%
Fortnite 140−150
+117%
65−70
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 144
+122%
65−70
−122%
Forza Horizon 5 96
+113%
45−50
−113%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+124%
55−60
−124%
Valorant 321
+114%
150−160
−114%
Atomic Heart 52
+117%
24−27
−117%
Battlefield 5 83
+137%
35−40
−137%
Counter-Strike 2 52
+117%
24−27
−117%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+112%
130−140
−112%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+117%
24−27
−117%
Dota 2 231
+110%
110−120
−110%
Far Cry 5 103
+129%
45−50
−129%
Fortnite 140−150
+117%
65−70
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 135
+125%
60−65
−125%
Forza Horizon 5 67
+123%
30−33
−123%
Grand Theft Auto V 133
+122%
60−65
−122%
Metro Exodus 56
+133%
24−27
−133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 139
+114%
65−70
−114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 113
+126%
50−55
−126%
Valorant 290
+123%
130−140
−123%
Battlefield 5 77
+120%
35−40
−120%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+129%
21−24
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+133%
21−24
−133%
Dota 2 211
+111%
100−105
−111%
Far Cry 5 95
+111%
45−50
−111%
Forza Horizon 4 107
+114%
50−55
−114%
Forza Horizon 5 67
+123%
30−33
−123%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 104
+131%
45−50
−131%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+126%
27−30
−126%
Valorant 122
+122%
55−60
−122%
Fortnite 140−150
+117%
65−70
−117%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+113%
100−105
−113%
Grand Theft Auto V 62
+130%
27−30
−130%
Metro Exodus 36
+125%
16−18
−125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 162
+116%
75−80
−116%
Valorant 262
+118%
120−130
−118%
Battlefield 5 60
+122%
27−30
−122%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+117%
12−14
−117%
Far Cry 5 65
+117%
30−33
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 84
+110%
40−45
−110%
Forza Horizon 5 39
+117%
18−20
−117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+125%
24−27
−125%
Fortnite 75−80
+120%
35−40
−120%
Atomic Heart 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Grand Theft Auto V 60
+122%
27−30
−122%
Metro Exodus 22
+120%
10−11
−120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+122%
18−20
−122%
Valorant 132
+120%
60−65
−120%
Battlefield 5 36
+125%
16−18
−125%
Counter-Strike 2 6
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+120%
5−6
−120%
Dota 2 95
+111%
45−50
−111%
Far Cry 5 33
+136%
14−16
−136%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+125%
24−27
−125%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+120%
10−11
−120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 36
+125%
16−18
−125%
Fortnite 35−40
+131%
16−18
−131%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and Quadro K5200 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Super is 130% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 111% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Super is 121% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.01 15.84
Recency 29 October 2019 22 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 150 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 108.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

Quadro K5200, on the other hand, has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop card while Quadro K5200 is a workstation one.

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 GeForce GTX 1660 Super
GeForce GTX 1660 Super
NVIDIA Quadro K5200
Quadro K5200

Other comparisons

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.


4.3
21410 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Super on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Quadro K5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1660 Super or Quadro K5200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.