GeForce GTX 480 vs Quadro K5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5200 with GeForce GTX 480, including specs and performance data.
K5200 outperforms GTX 480 by an impressive 51% 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 | 391 | 488 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.94 | 1.41 |
| Power efficiency | 7.52 | 2.99 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | GF100 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 26 March 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 480 has 50% 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 | 2304 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 | 42.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.553 TFLOPS | 1.345 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 192 | 60 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | 8 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 177.4 GB/s |
| 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 | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.51 | 9.62 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 26 March 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1536 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
Quadro K5200 has a 50.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 480 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K5200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 480 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
