RTX A4000 vs Quadro P5200

Place in the ranking	185	62
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	21.53	24.88
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GP104	GA104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	21 February 2018 (7 years ago)	12 April 2021 (3 years ago)

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	6144
Core clock speed	1556 MHz	735 MHz
Boost clock speed	1746 MHz	1560 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	140 Watt
Texture fill rate	279.4	299.5
Floating-point processing power	8.94 TFLOPS	19.17 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	96
TMUs	160	192
Tensor Cores	no data	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	48

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 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-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	16 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	230.4 GB/s	448.0 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

4x DisplayPort 1.4a

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	6.1	8.6
DLSS	-	+

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 P5200 31.35

RTX A4000 50.72
+61.8%

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 12079

RTX A4000 19540
+61.8%

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 P5200 44354

RTX A4000 121277
+173%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P5200 45615

RTX A4000 111416
+144%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P5200 45689

RTX A4000 124547
+173%

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	120 −58.3%	190−200 +58.3%
4K	48 −56.3%	75−80 +56.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 −54.8%	130−140 +54.8%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −55.7%	95−100 +55.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −53.8%	100−105 +53.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 −54.8%	130−140 +54.8%
Battlefield 5	110−120 −54.5%	170−180 +54.5%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −55.7%	95−100 +55.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −53.8%	100−105 +53.8%
Far Cry 5	95−100 −56.3%	150−160 +56.3%
Fortnite	130−140 −61.8%	220−230 +61.8%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −56.5%	180−190 +56.5%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 −52.9%	130−140 +52.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −53.8%	180−190 +53.8%
Valorant	180−190 −60.4%	300−310 +60.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	80−85 −54.8%	130−140 +54.8%
Battlefield 5	110−120 −54.5%	170−180 +54.5%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −55.7%	95−100 +55.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	270−280 −46.5%	400−450 +46.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −53.8%	100−105 +53.8%
Dota 2	130−140 −57.9%	210−220 +57.9%
Far Cry 5	95−100 −56.3%	150−160 +56.3%
Fortnite	130−140 −61.8%	220−230 +61.8%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −56.5%	180−190 +56.5%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 −52.9%	130−140 +52.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 −53.8%	160−170 +53.8%
Metro Exodus	65−70 −49.3%	100−105 +49.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −53.8%	180−190 +53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	118 −61%	190−200 +61%
Valorant	180−190 −60.4%	300−310 +60.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 −54.5%	170−180 +54.5%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −55.7%	95−100 +55.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −53.8%	100−105 +53.8%
Dota 2	130−140 −57.9%	210−220 +57.9%
Far Cry 5	95−100 −56.3%	150−160 +56.3%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −56.5%	180−190 +56.5%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 −52.9%	130−140 +52.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −53.8%	180−190 +53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65 −53.8%	100−105 +53.8%
Valorant	180−190 −60.4%	300−310 +60.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

130−140

−61.8%

220−230
+61.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −53.8%	40−45 +53.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	200−210 −47.8%	300−310 +47.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 −60.7%	90−95 +60.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −58.5%	65−70 +58.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −60%	280−290 +60%
Valorant	220−230 −55.6%	350−400 +55.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 −51.9%	120−130 +51.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −61.3%	50−55 +61.3%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −59.4%	110−120 +59.4%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −53.8%	120−130 +53.8%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 −53.8%	80−85 +53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −56.9%	80−85 +56.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

70−75
−50.7%

110−120

+50.7%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	21−24 −52.2%	35−40 +52.2%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −50%	21−24 +50%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 −55.2%	90−95 +55.2%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −53.8%	40−45 +53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	46 −52.2%	70−75 +52.2%
Valorant	170−180 −60%	280−290 +60%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −52.2%	70−75 +52.2%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −50%	21−24 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −50%	21−24 +50%
Dota 2	90−95 −53.8%	140−150 +53.8%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −57.1%	55−60 +57.1%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −53.8%	80−85 +53.8%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 −55.2%	45−50 +55.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −61.8%	55−60 +61.8%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

30−35

−61.8%

55−60
+61.8%

This is how Quadro P5200 and RTX A4000 compete in popular games:

RTX A4000 is 58% faster in 1080p
RTX A4000 is 56% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.35	50.72
Recency	21 February 2018	12 April 2021
Chip lithography	16 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	140 Watt

Quadro P5200 has 40% lower power consumption.

RTX A4000, on the other hand, has a 61.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation card while RTX A4000 is a workstation one.