Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs Quadro K5200

Place in the ranking	343	212
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.28	no data
Power efficiency	7.28	22.69
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK110B	TU106
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	22 July 2014 (10 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,699.74	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	2304
Core clock speed	667 MHz	945 MHz
Boost clock speed	771 MHz	1380 MHz
Number of transistors	7,080 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	148.0	198.7
Floating-point processing power	3.553 TFLOPS	6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	64
TMUs	192	144
Tensor Cores	no data	288
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	36

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	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.3 GB/s	448.0 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort	No outputs
G-SYNC support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	3.5	7.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro K5200 15.82

RTX 3000 Mobile 26.31
+66.3%

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.

Quadro K5200 6083

RTX 3000 Mobile 10116
+66.3%

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	60−65 −71.7%	103 +71.7%
4K	50−55 −76%	88 +76%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	28.33	no data
4K	33.99	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Elden Ring	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	91 +0%	91 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Dota 2	44 +0%	44 +0%
Elden Ring	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	86 +0%	86 +0%
Fortnite	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	43 +0%	43 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110 +0%	110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
World of Tanks	260−270 +0%	260−270 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Dota 2	121 +0%	121 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
World of Tanks	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Dota 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Elden Ring	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Dota 2	88 +0%	88 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

This is how Quadro K5200 and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

RTX 3000 Mobile is 72% faster in 1080p
RTX 3000 Mobile is 76% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.82	26.31
Recency	22 July 2014	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	80 Watt

Quadro K5200 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 66.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K5200 is a workstation card while Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.