NVS 510 vs Quadro P5200 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5200 Max-Q with NVS 510, including specs and performance data.
P5200 Max-Q outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 1702% 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 | 214 | 972 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 22.40 | 3.55 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1316 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1569 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 251.0 | 12.75 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.033 TFLOPS | 0.306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 16 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 160 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 230.9 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
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 | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 3.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.37 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 35 Watt |
P5200 Max-Q has a 1701.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 510, on the other hand, has 185.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5200 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5200 Max-Q is a mobile workstation graphics card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
