Radeon RX 6950 XT vs Quadro K5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5200 with Radeon RX 6950 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6950 XT outperforms K5200 by a whopping 353% 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 | 382 | 27 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.92 | 34.76 |
| Power efficiency | 7.52 | 15.24 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 6950 XT has 3678% 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 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 335 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.553 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 128 |
| TMUs | 192 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 MB |
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 | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 45−50
−384%
| 218
+384%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
−396%
| 134
+396%
|
| 4K | 18−20
−367%
| 84
+367%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 37.77
−649%
| 5.04
+649%
|
| 1440p | 62.95
−668%
| 8.20
+668%
|
| 4K | 94.43
−622%
| 13.08
+622%
|
- RX 6950 XT has 649% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT has 668% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT has 622% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 207
+0%
|
207
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 339
+0%
|
339
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 181
+0%
|
181
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 237
+0%
|
237
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 318
+0%
|
318
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 199
+0%
|
199
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 229
+0%
|
229
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 172
+0%
|
172
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 189
+0%
|
189
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 376
+0%
|
376
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 167
+0%
|
167
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 164
+0%
|
164
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 216
+0%
|
216
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 236
+0%
|
236
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K5200 and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 384% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 396% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 367% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.01 | 63.46 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 335 Watt |
Quadro K5200 has 123.3% lower power consumption.
RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 353% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K5200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6950 XT 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.
