Quadro K5200 vs Radeon R9 380

#ad 
Buy
Radeon R9 360 OEM Radeon R9 370 Radeon R9 370 1024SP Radeon R9 370X Radeon R9 380 Radeon R9 380 OEM Radeon R9 380X Radeon R9 390 Radeon R9 390 X2 Radeon R9 390X Radeon R9 390X2
VS
#ad 
Buy
Quadro K5200 Quadro K6000 Tesla K40d Tesla K40m Tesla K40s Tesla K40st Tesla K40t

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Quadro K5200, including specs and performance data.

R9 380
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
13.62

K5200 outperforms R9 380 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 380 R9 380
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking358356
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.882.27
Power efficiency5.677.23
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAntiguaGK110B
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $1,699.74

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R9 380 has 247% better value for money than Quadro K5200.

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 cores17922304
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data667 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHz771 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million7,080 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate108.6148.0
Floating-point processing power3.476 TFLOPS3.553 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs112192

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length221 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pin1x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 GB/s192.3 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan++
Mantle+-
CUDA-3.5

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.

R9 380 13.62
Quadro K5200 13.71
+0.7%

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.

R9 380 6086
Quadro K5200 6127
+0.7%

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 HD65
+0%
65−70
+0%
4K25
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.06
+754%
26.15
−754%
4K7.96
+790%
70.82
−790%
  • R9 380 has 754% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 380 has 790% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+5%
80−85
−5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+6.7%
60−65
−6.7%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+5%
80−85
−5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+8.9%
45−50
−8.9%
Fortnite 80−85
+3.8%
80−85
−3.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+3.3%
60−65
−3.3%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+4.4%
45−50
−4.4%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+8%
50−55
−8%
Valorant 120−130
+0.8%
120−130
−0.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+6.7%
60−65
−6.7%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+5%
80−85
−5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+3.7%
190−200
−3.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Dota 2 90−95
+3.3%
90−95
−3.3%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+8.9%
45−50
−8.9%
Fortnite 80−85
+3.8%
80−85
−3.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+3.3%
60−65
−3.3%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+4.4%
45−50
−4.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+1.8%
55−60
−1.8%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+8%
50−55
−8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+2%
50−55
−2%
Valorant 120−130
+0.8%
120−130
−0.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+6.7%
60−65
−6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Dota 2 90−95
+3.3%
90−95
−3.3%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+8.9%
45−50
−8.9%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+3.3%
60−65
−3.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+8%
50−55
−8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0.8%
120−130
−0.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 80−85
+3.8%
80−85
−3.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+1.4%
140−150
−1.4%
Valorant 150−160
+1.3%
150−160
−1.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Valorant 80−85
+1.3%
80−85
−1.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 50−55
+6%
50−55
−6%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how R9 380 and Quadro K5200 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p
  • R9 380 is 4% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.62 13.71
Recency 18 June 2015 22 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 150 Watt

R9 380 has an age advantage of 10 months.

Quadro K5200, on the other hand, has a 0.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 380 and Quadro K5200.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Quadro K5200 is a workstation one.

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.

AMD Radeon R9 380
Radeon R9 380
NVIDIA Quadro K5200
Quadro K5200
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 380 Radeon R9 380
vs
GTX 960 GeForce GTX 960
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
vs
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
R9 380 Radeon R9 380
vs
R9 380X Radeon R9 380X
GTX 970 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
vs
Pro 5700 XT Pro 5700 XT
GTX 970 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
vs
Arc B580 Arc B580
RX 470 AMD Radeon RX 470
vs
Stream Processor Stream Processor
R9 280X AMD Radeon R9 280X
vs
HD 8470D HD 8470D
R9 380 AMD Radeon R9 380
vs
Radeon 530 Radeon 530
R9 380 AMD Radeon R9 380
vs
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
R9 380 AMD Radeon R9 380
vs
RX 5300M RX 5300M
GTX 960 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
vs
HD 7970M HD 7970M
GTX 960 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
vs
Quadro K620M Quadro K620M
GTX 960 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
vs
GeForce3 GeForce3

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1 843 votes

Rate Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 42 votes

Rate Quadro K5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 380 or Quadro K5200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.