NVS 5200M vs Quadro M4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000 with NVS 5200M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M4000
2015
8 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
17.32
+1212%

M4000 outperforms NVS 5200M by a whopping 1212% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking3261037
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.17no data
Power efficiency9.933.62
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM204GF117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date29 June 2015 (9 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$791 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores166496
Core clock speed773 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate80.3910.00
Floating-point processing power2.573 TFLOPS0.24 TFLOPS
ROPs644
TMUs10416

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM
Length241 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 192 GB/s14.4 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Syncno data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
High-Performance Video I/O6+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA5.2+

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.

Quadro M4000 17.32
+1212%
NVS 5200M 1.32

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 M4000 6672
+1211%
NVS 5200M 509

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.

Quadro M4000 20038
+824%
NVS 5200M 2169

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 HD140−150
+1173%
11
−1173%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.65no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Quadro M4000 and NVS 5200M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M4000 is 1173% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.32 1.32
Recency 29 June 2015 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 25 Watt

Quadro M4000 has a 1212.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount.

NVS 5200M, on the other hand, has 380% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 5200M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation card while NVS 5200M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M4000
Quadro M4000
NVIDIA NVS 5200M
NVS 5200M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 245 votes

Rate Quadro M4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 154 votes

Rate NVS 5200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M4000 or NVS 5200M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.