Quadro K5200 vs GeForce GTX 690
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 690 with Quadro K5200, including specs and performance data.
K5200 outperforms GTX 690 by a moderate 13% 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 | 416 | 388 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.22 | 0.91 |
| Power efficiency | 3.35 | 7.56 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK110B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $1,699.74 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 690 has 34% better value for money than Quadro K5200.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 3072 ×2 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 667 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1019 MHz | 771 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 130.4 ×2 | 148.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.13 TFLOPS ×2 | 3.553 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 ×2 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384 GB/s ×2 | 192.3 GB/s |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini-Displayport 1.2 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | Yes (via dongle) | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | 3.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 12.40 | 14.00 |
| Recency | 3 May 2012 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 150 Watt |
Quadro K5200 has a 12.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 690 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 690 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K5200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
