Quadro P5200 vs Quadro M6000 24GB
Quadro P5200
Popular choices:
Quadro M6000 24GB
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 P5200
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M6000 24GB
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 P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+500%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+150.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($240) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($600) |
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 P5200 and Quadro M6000 24GB
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P5200 scores 11,650 and the Quadro M6000 24GB reaches 11,625 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P5200 is built on Pascal while the Quadro M6000 24GB uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 16 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (Quadro P5200) vs 3,072 (Quadro M6000 24GB). Raw compute: 8.94 TFLOPS (Quadro P5200) vs 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000 24GB). Boost clocks: 1746 MHz vs 1114 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,650 | 11,625 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560 | 3072+20% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 8.94 TFLOPS+31% | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1746 MHz+57% | 1114 MHz |
| ROPs | 64 | 96+50% |
| TMUs | 160 | 256+60% |
| L1 Cache | 0.94 MB | 1.1 MB+17% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 3 MB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| 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 P5200 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M6000 24GB has 24 GB. The Quadro M6000 24GB offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro P5200) vs 3 MB (Quadro M6000 24GB) — the Quadro M6000 24GB has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 24 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 384-bit+50% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 3 MB+50% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro P5200) vs 12/1 (Quadro M6000 24GB). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12/1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5.0 (Quadro P5200) vs NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000 24GB). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP7 vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro P5200) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000 24GB).
| Feature | Quadro P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5.0 | NVENC 4.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP7 | PureVideo HD VP6 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P5200 draws 100W versus the Quadro M6000 24GB's 250W — a 85.7% difference. The Quadro P5200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro P5200) vs 500W (Quadro M6000 24GB). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 267mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | Quadro P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W-60% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 267mm |
| Height | 0mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 80°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 116.5+151% | 46.5 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P5200 launched at $500 MSRP and currently averages $240, while the Quadro M6000 24GB launched at $4999 and now averages $600. The Quadro P5200 costs 60% less ($360 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 48.5 (Quadro P5200) vs 19.4 (Quadro M6000 24GB) — the Quadro P5200 offers 150% better value. The Quadro P5200 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2016).
| Feature | Quadro P5200 | Quadro M6000 24GB |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $500-90% | $4999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $240-60% | $600 |
| Performance per Dollar | 48.5+150% | 19.4 |
| Codename | GP104 | GM200 |
| Release | February 21 2018 | March 5 2016 |
| Ranking | #230 | #233 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P5200 and Quadro M6000 24GB
