Quadro M6000 24GB vs Quadro P5200
Quadro M6000 24GB
Popular choices:
Quadro P5200
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M6000 24GB
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P5200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro P5200 uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro P5200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M6000 24GB lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro P5200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M6000 24GB offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+500%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P5200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $240 versus $600 for the Quadro M6000 24GB, it costs 60% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 150.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+150.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($600) | ✅More affordable ($240) |
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 Quadro M6000 24GB and Quadro P5200
Quadro M6000 24GB
The Quadro M6000 24GB is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 5 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 988 MHz to 1114 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,625 points. Launch price was $4,999.
Quadro P5200
The Quadro P5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1556 MHz to 1746 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,650 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M6000 24GB scores 11,625 and the Quadro P5200 reaches 11,650 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M6000 24GB is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Quadro P5200 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs 2,560 (Quadro P5200). Raw compute: 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs 8.94 TFLOPS (Quadro P5200). Boost clocks: 1114 MHz vs 1746 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,625 | 11,650 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072+20% | 2560 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.844 TFLOPS | 8.94 TFLOPS+31% |
| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1746 MHz+57% |
| ROPs | 96+50% | 64 |
| TMUs | 256+60% | 160 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB+17% | 0.94 MB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+50% | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro M6000 24GB comes with 24 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P5200 has 4 GB. The Quadro M6000 24GB offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 384-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs 2 MB (Quadro P5200) — the Quadro M6000 24GB has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 24 GB+500% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 384-bit+50% | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+50% | 2 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12/1 (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs 12.1 (Quadro P5200). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12/1 | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs NVENC 5.0 (Quadro P5200). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs PureVideo HD VP7. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro P5200).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | NVENC 5.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | PureVideo HD VP7 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M6000 24GB draws 250W versus the Quadro P5200's 100W — a 85.7% difference. The Quadro P5200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs 500W (Quadro P5200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 100W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 0mm |
| Height | 112mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 46.5 | 116.5+151% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M6000 24GB launched at $4999 MSRP and currently averages $600, while the Quadro P5200 launched at $500 and now averages $240. The Quadro P5200 costs 60% less ($360 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 19.4 (Quadro M6000 24GB) vs 48.5 (Quadro P5200) — the Quadro P5200 offers 150% better value. The Quadro P5200 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2016).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 24GB | Quadro P5200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4999 | $500-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $600 | $240-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 19.4 | 48.5+150% |
| Codename | GM200 | GP104 |
| Release | March 5 2016 | February 21 2018 |
| Ranking | #233 | #230 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M6000 24GB and Quadro P5200
