RTX A2000 vs Quadro K5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5200 and RTX A2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A2000 outperforms K5200 by a whopping 125% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 344 | 142 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.28 | 88.46 |
| Power efficiency | 7.28 | 35.03 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | GA106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (10 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX A2000 has 3780% 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 cores | 2304 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.553 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 192 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 167 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 288.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 8.6 |
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.
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.
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 | 40−45
−135%
| 94
+135%
|
| 1440p | 18−21
−150%
| 45
+150%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−142%
| 29
+142%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 42.49
−790%
| 4.78
+790%
|
| 1440p | 94.43
−846%
| 9.98
+846%
|
| 4K | 141.65
−815%
| 15.48
+815%
|
- RTX A2000 has 790% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX A2000 has 846% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX A2000 has 815% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K5200 and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 135% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 150% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 is 142% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.82 | 35.54 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 10 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 70 Watt |
Quadro K5200 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 124.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5200 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
