Radeon PRO W7700 vs Quadro P5200

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P5200 with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P5200
2018
16 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
31.72

PRO W7700 outperforms P5200 by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking17361
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data55.86
Power efficiency22.0518.23
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGP104Navi 32
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date21 February 2018 (6 years ago)13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

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 cores25603072
Core clock speed1556 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speed1746 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate279.4499.2
Floating-point processing power8.94 TFLOPS31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs160192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth230.4 GB/s576.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort 2.1

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.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.1-

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 31.72
PRO W7700 49.84
+57.1%

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 12238
PRO W7700 19227
+57.1%

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 HD108
−48.1%
160−170
+48.1%
4K46
−52.2%
70−75
+52.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.24
4Kno data14.27

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−48.1%
80−85
+48.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−44.9%
100−105
+44.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
−54.5%
85−90
+54.5%
Battlefield 5 100−110
−53.8%
160−170
+53.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
−53.8%
100−105
+53.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−48.1%
80−85
+48.1%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−54.9%
110−120
+54.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
−48.1%
120−130
+48.1%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
−52%
260−270
+52%
Hitman 3 65−70
−49.3%
100−105
+49.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
−51.1%
210−220
+51.1%
Metro Exodus 100−110
−49.5%
160−170
+49.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
−51.9%
120−130
+51.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 152
−51.3%
230−240
+51.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
−53.8%
180−190
+53.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−44.9%
100−105
+44.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
−54.5%
85−90
+54.5%
Battlefield 5 100−110
−53.8%
160−170
+53.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
−53.8%
100−105
+53.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−48.1%
80−85
+48.1%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−54.9%
110−120
+54.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
−48.1%
120−130
+48.1%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
−52%
260−270
+52%
Hitman 3 65−70
−49.3%
100−105
+49.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
−51.1%
210−220
+51.1%
Metro Exodus 100−110
−49.5%
160−170
+49.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
−51.9%
120−130
+51.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
−51.8%
170−180
+51.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
−49.3%
100−105
+49.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
−53.8%
180−190
+53.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−44.9%
100−105
+44.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
−54.5%
85−90
+54.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
−53.8%
100−105
+53.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−48.1%
80−85
+48.1%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−54.9%
110−120
+54.9%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
−52%
260−270
+52%
Hitman 3 65−70
−49.3%
100−105
+49.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
−51.1%
210−220
+51.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
−51.8%
170−180
+51.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65
−53.8%
100−105
+53.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
−53.8%
180−190
+53.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
−51.9%
120−130
+51.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
−50%
90−95
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−53.1%
75−80
+53.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−47.1%
50−55
+47.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
−51.5%
50−55
+51.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−48.6%
55−60
+48.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−52.2%
35−40
+52.2%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−48.6%
55−60
+48.6%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
−53%
280−290
+53%
Hitman 3 40−45
−50%
60−65
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
−49.3%
100−105
+49.3%
Metro Exodus 60−65
−55.7%
95−100
+55.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
−48.6%
110−120
+48.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−51.2%
65−70
+51.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 160−170
−54.8%
260−270
+54.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
−48.1%
80−85
+48.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−45.2%
45−50
+45.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−53.8%
40−45
+53.8%
Hitman 3 24−27
−53.8%
40−45
+53.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
−52.9%
240−250
+52.9%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−53.8%
60−65
+53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
−52.2%
70−75
+52.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
−50%
30−33
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−50%
27−30
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−47.7%
65−70
+47.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−54.8%
65−70
+54.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
−42.9%
40−45
+42.9%

This is how Quadro P5200 and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 48% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7700 is 52% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.72 49.84
Recency 21 February 2018 13 November 2023
Chip lithography 16 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 190 Watt

Quadro P5200 has 90% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 57.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.


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

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 P5200
Quadro P5200
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.1 93 votes

Rate Quadro P5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.