FirePro W9000 vs Quadro K5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5200 and FirePro W9000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 376 | 375 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.90 | 0.38 |
| Power efficiency | 7.43 | 4.07 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 14 June 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | $3,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro K5200 has 137% better value for money than FirePro W9000.
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 | 2304 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.553 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 128 |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 279 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 264 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 14.21 | 14.22 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 14 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 350 Watt |
Quadro K5200 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
FirePro W9000, on the other hand, has a 0.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K5200 and FirePro W9000.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
