CPU
GPU
FirePro W9000
Popular choices:
Quadro K5200
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro W9000 is positioned at rank 317 and the Quadro K5200 is on rank 254, so the Quadro K5200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W9000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K5200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro W9000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K5200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | FirePro W9000 | Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (279mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K5200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K5200 holds the technical lead. Priced at $70 (vs $150), it costs 53% less, resulting in a 114% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro W9000 | Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+114%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($70) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W9000 and Quadro K5200
FirePro W9000
The FirePro W9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 14 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 975 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 274W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,157 points. Launch price was $3,999.
Quadro K5200
The Quadro K5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 667 MHz to 771 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,149 points. Launch price was $1,699.74.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro W9000 scores 6,157 and the Quadro K5200 reaches 6,149 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W9000 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Quadro K5200 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (FirePro W9000) vs 2,304 (Quadro K5200). Raw compute: 3.994 TFLOPS (FirePro W9000) vs 3.553 TFLOPS (Quadro K5200).
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,157 | 6,149 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048 | 2304+13% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.994 TFLOPS+12% | 3.553 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48+50% |
| TMUs | 128 | 192+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro W9000 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K5200 has 8 GB. The Quadro K5200 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit.
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 8 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro W9000 draws 274W versus the Quadro K5200's 150W — a 58.5% difference. The Quadro K5200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W9000) vs 350W (Quadro K5200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 274W | 150W-45% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 279mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 93°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 22.5 | 41.0+82% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro W9000 launched at $3999 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the Quadro K5200 launched at $2250 and now averages $70. The Quadro K5200 costs 53.3% less ($80 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 41.0 (FirePro W9000) vs 87.8 (Quadro K5200) — the Quadro K5200 offers 114.1% better value. The Quadro K5200 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2012).
| Feature | FirePro W9000 | Quadro K5200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3999 | $2250-44% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $70-53% |
| Performance per Dollar | 41.0 | 87.8+114% |
| Codename | Tahiti | GK110B |
| Release | June 14 2012 | July 22 2014 |
| Ranking | #390 | #391 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro W9000 and Quadro K5200
