Quadro P5200 vs Radeon PRO W7500

Place in the ranking	138	181
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	100.00	no data
Power efficiency	35.15	21.61
Architecture	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Navi 33	GP104
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	3 August 2023 (1 year ago)	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$429	no data

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	1792	2560
Core clock speed	1500 MHz	1556 MHz
Boost clock speed	1700 MHz	1746 MHz
Number of transistors	13,300 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	190.4	279.4
Floating-point processing power	12.19 TFLOPS	8.94 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	112	160
Ray Tracing Cores	28	no data

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	216 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1344 MHz	1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	172.0 GB/s	230.4 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

4x DisplayPort 2.1

No outputs

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 Ultimate (12_2)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.7	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.2.131
CUDA	-	6.1

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.

PRO W7500 35.68
+13.8%

Quadro P5200 31.34

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.

PRO W7500 13714
+13.9%

Quadro P5200 12045

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	120−130 +5.3%	114 −5.3%
4K	50−55 +8.7%	46 −8.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.58	no data
4K	8.58	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Dota 2	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Fortnite	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	216 +0%	216 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Dota 2	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	84 +0%	84 +0%
Valorant	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	93 +0%	93 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

This is how PRO W7500 and Quadro P5200 compete in popular games:

PRO W7500 is 5% faster in 1080p
PRO W7500 is 9% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	35.68	31.34
Recency	3 August 2023	21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	100 Watt

PRO W7500 has a 13.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

Quadro P5200, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon PRO W7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation card while Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation one.

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