Quadro FX 1800 vs Quadro P5200

Place in the ranking	179	1103
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	21.67	1.22
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP104	G94
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$489

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	2560	64
Core clock speed	1556 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1746 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	59 Watt
Texture fill rate	279.4	17.60
Floating-point processing power	8.94 TFLOPS	0.176 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	12
TMUs	160	32

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	198 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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	768 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	230.4 GB/s	38.4 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 Connectors

No outputs

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	1.1

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 P5200 31.41
+2920%

FX 1800 1.04

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 P5200 12077
+2934%

FX 1800 398

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	114 +3700%	3−4 −3700%
4K	46 +4500%	1−2 −4500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	163.00
4K	no data	489.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +3000%	2−3 −3000%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Elden Ring	100−110 +3433%	3−4 −3433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +2933%	3−4 −2933%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +3000%	2−3 −3000%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +3500%	4−5 −3500%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +3850%	2−3 −3850%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Valorant	120−130 +3025%	4−5 −3025%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +2933%	3−4 −2933%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +3000%	2−3 −3000%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Dota 2	100−110 +3367%	3−4 −3367%
Elden Ring	100−110 +3433%	3−4 −3433%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Fortnite	140−150 +3575%	4−5 −3575%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +3500%	4−5 −3500%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +3333%	3−4 −3333%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +3850%	2−3 −3850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	216 +2986%	7−8 −2986%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +3433%	3−4 −3433%
Valorant	120−130 +3025%	4−5 −3025%
World of Tanks	270−280 +2967%	9−10 −2967%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +2933%	3−4 −2933%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +3000%	2−3 −3000%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Dota 2	100−110 +3367%	3−4 −3367%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +3500%	4−5 −3500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	84 +4100%	2−3 −4100%
Valorant	120−130 +3025%	4−5 −3025%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 +5500%	1−2 −5500%
Elden Ring	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +5500%	1−2 −5500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +3400%	5−6 −3400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33	0−1
World of Tanks	200−210 +3267%	6−7 −3267%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Far Cry 5	95−100 +3167%	3−4 −3167%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +3400%	2−3 −3400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Valorant	90−95 +2933%	3−4 −2933%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−33	0−1
Dota 2	55−60 +5700%	1−2 −5700%
Elden Ring	27−30	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +5700%	1−2 −5700%
Metro Exodus	24−27	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	93 +3000%	3−4 −3000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +5700%	1−2 −5700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14	0−1
Dota 2	55−60 +5700%	1−2 −5700%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Fortnite	40−45 +4000%	1−2 −4000%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Valorant	45−50 +4500%	1−2 −4500%

This is how Quadro P5200 and FX 1800 compete in popular games:

Quadro P5200 is 3700% faster in 1080p
Quadro P5200 is 4500% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.41	1.04
Recency	21 February 2018	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	768 MB
Chip lithography	16 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	59 Watt

Quadro P5200 has a 2920.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 2033.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1800, on the other hand, has 69.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation one.

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