NVIDIA Quadro K5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
We compared two Professional market GPUs: 8GB VRAM Quadro K5200 and 2GB VRAM Quadro K3000M to see which GPU has better performance in key specifications, benchmark tests, power consumption, etc.
Main Differences
NVIDIA Quadro K5200 's Advantages
Released 2 years and 1 months late
Boost Clock771MHz
More VRAM (8GB vs 2GB)
Larger VRAM bandwidth (192.3GB/s vs 89.60GB/s)
1728 additional rendering cores
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M 's Advantages
Lower TDP (75W vs 150W)
Score
Benchmark
FP32 (float)
Quadro K5200
+371%
3.553 TFLOPS
Quadro K3000M
0.753 TFLOPS
3DMark Time Spy
Quadro K5200
+318%
2072
Quadro K3000M
495
Graphics Card
Jul 2014
Release Date
Jun 2012
Quadro
Generation
Quadro Mobile
Professional
Type
Professional
PCIe 3.0 x16
Bus Interface
MXM-B (3.0)
Clock Speeds
667 MHz
Base Clock
-
771 MHz
Boost Clock
-
1502 MHz
Memory Clock
700 MHz
Memory
8GB
Memory Size
2GB
GDDR5
Memory Type
GDDR5
256bit
Memory Bus
256bit
192.3GB/s
Bandwidth
89.60GB/s
Render Config
-
-
-
-
-
-
2304
Shading Units
576
192
TMUs
48
48
ROPs
32
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
L1 Cache
16 KB (per SMX)
-
L2 Cache
512 KB
-
-
-
Theoretical Performance
37.01 GPixel/s
Pixel Rate
7.848 GPixel/s
148.0 GTexel/s
Texture Rate
31.39 GTexel/s
-
-
-
3.553 TFLOPS
FP32 (float)
753.4 GFLOPS
148.0 GFLOPS
FP64 (double)
31.39 GFLOPS
Board Design
150W
TDP
75W
450 W
Suggested PSU
-
2x DVI
2x DisplayPort 1.2
Outputs
No outputs
1x 6-pin
Power Connectors
-
Graphics Processor
GK110B
GPU Name
GK104
-
GPU Variant
N14E-Q1-A2
Kepler
Architecture
Kepler
TSMC
Foundry
TSMC
28 nm
Process Size
28 nm
7.08 billion
Transistors
3.54 billion
561 mm²
Die Size
294 mm²
Graphics Features
12 (11_1)
DirectX
12 (11_0)
4.6
OpenGL
4.6
3.0
OpenCL
3.0
1.1
Vulkan
1.1
3.5
CUDA
3.0
5.1
Shader Model
5.1
