Quadro K510M vs P5200

Place in performance ranking	163	901
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.52	no data
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP104	GK208
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	23 July 2013 (10 years ago)
Current price	$3894	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. 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	846 MHz
Boost clock speed	1569 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	279.4	13.54
Floating-point performance	no data	324.9 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro P5200 and Quadro K510M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	medium sized
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	7216 MHz	2400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	230.4 GB/s	19.2 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	No outputs
Display Port	no data	1.2

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	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.4	5
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
CUDA	6.1	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 31.86
+1819%

Quadro K510M 1.66

P5200 outperforms K510M by 1819% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro P5200 12304
+1820%

Quadro K510M 641

P5200 outperforms K510M by 1820% in Passmark.

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	130 +2067%	6−7 −2067%
4K	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

50−55

no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +1980%	5−6 −1980%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55	no data
Far Cry 5	70−75	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85	no data
Forza Horizon 4	120−130	no data
Hitman 3	65−70	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130	no data
Metro Exodus	95−100 +1860%	5−6 −1860%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80−85	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85	no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +1980%	5−6 −1980%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55	no data
Far Cry 5	70−75	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85	no data
Forza Horizon 4	120−130	no data
Hitman 3	65−70	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130	no data
Metro Exodus	95−100 +1860%	5−6 −1860%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80−85	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	118	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85	no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55	no data
Far Cry 5	70−75	no data
Forza Horizon 4	120−130	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120	no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85	no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

80−85

no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65	no data
Far Cry New Dawn	70−75	no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24	no data
Far Cry 5	55−60	no data
Forza Horizon 4	65−70	no data
Hitman 3	40−45	no data
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70	no data
Metro Exodus	60−65 +1933%	3−4 −1933%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +2367%	3−4 −2367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55

no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27	no data
Hitman 3	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40	no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	46 +2200%	2−3 −2200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22	no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20	no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20	no data
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10	0−1
Far Cry 5	18−20	no data
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40	no data
Metro Exodus	30−35	no data
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

no data

This is how Quadro P5200 and Quadro K510M compete in popular games:

Quadro P5200 is 2067% faster in 1080p
Quadro P5200 is 1900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.86	1.66
Recency	11 January 2017	23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	30 Watt