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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

Quadro P5200

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $299 less on MSRP ($500 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 62.3% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 23.3 vs 14.4 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 100W instead of 130W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Radeon Pro 5700

2020

Why buy it

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌
59.8% HIGHER MSRP
$799 MSRPvs$500 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 14.4 vs 23.3 G3D/$ ($799 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
❌30% higher power demand at 130W vs 100W.

Quadro P5200

2018

Radeon Pro 5700

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $299 less on MSRP ($500 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Delivers 62.3% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 23.3 vs 14.4 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
✅Draws 100W instead of 130W, a 30W reduction.

Why buy it

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌
59.8% HIGHER MSRP
$799 MSRPvs$500 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 14.4 vs 23.3 G3D/$ ($799 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
❌30% higher power demand at 130W vs 100W.

Quick Answers

So, is Quadro P5200 better than Radeon Pro 5700?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 11,650 vs 11,469 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Quadro P5200 is the overall package: you are getting no meaningful modern upscaling stack, plus much lower power draw (100W vs 130W).

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon Pro 5700 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2020 generation instead of 2018, more VRAM at 8 GB instead of 4 GB, better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 7nm process instead of 16nm. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Quadro P5200 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $500 MSRP. Quadro P5200 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. Quadro P5200 is about $299 cheaper on MSRP at $500 MSRP versus $799 MSRP, and you are getting 1.6% higher G3D Mark. Radeon Pro 5700 is the newer 2020 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does Radeon Pro 5700 make more sense than Quadro P5200?

Yes. Radeon Pro 5700 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, future-proofing, and staying closer to $799 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Quadro P5200. The trade-off is that Quadro P5200 currently gives you 1.6% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 62.3%.

Games Benchmarks

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 9800X3D 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.

Quadro P5200 Benchmark Check

Radeon Pro 5700 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
1080p
low	145 FPS	119 FPS
medium	134 FPS	105 FPS
high	115 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	88 FPS	71 FPS
1440p
low	128 FPS	108 FPS
medium	109 FPS	90 FPS
high	93 FPS	71 FPS
ultra	73 FPS	58 FPS
4K
low	59 FPS	56 FPS
medium	52 FPS	50 FPS
high	43 FPS	32 FPS
ultra	38 FPS	27 FPS

Open Quadro P5200 Open Radeon Pro 5700

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
1080p
low	290 FPS	215 FPS
medium	240 FPS	180 FPS
high	185 FPS	133 FPS
ultra	146 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	190 FPS	143 FPS
medium	157 FPS	120 FPS
high	128 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	102 FPS	66 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	76 FPS
medium	80 FPS	65 FPS
high	67 FPS	53 FPS
ultra	52 FPS	38 FPS

Open Quadro P5200 Open Radeon Pro 5700

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
1080p
low	524 FPS	516 FPS
medium	419 FPS	413 FPS
high	350 FPS	344 FPS
ultra	262 FPS	258 FPS
1440p
low	393 FPS	387 FPS
medium	315 FPS	310 FPS
high	262 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	197 FPS	194 FPS
4K
low	262 FPS	258 FPS
medium	210 FPS	206 FPS
high	175 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	131 FPS	129 FPS

Open Quadro P5200 Open Radeon Pro 5700

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
1080p
low	334 FPS	378 FPS
medium	272 FPS	325 FPS
high	245 FPS	275 FPS
ultra	208 FPS	216 FPS
1440p
low	253 FPS	301 FPS
medium	202 FPS	262 FPS
high	171 FPS	206 FPS
ultra	144 FPS	157 FPS
4K
low	133 FPS	162 FPS
medium	109 FPS	130 FPS
high	96 FPS	118 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	95 FPS

Open Quadro P5200 Open Radeon Pro 5700

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro P5200 and Radeon Pro 5700

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.

Radeon Pro 5700

The Radeon Pro 5700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 4 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1243 MHz to 1350 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 130W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,469 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro P5200 scores 11,650 and the Radeon Pro 5700 reaches 11,469 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P5200 is built on Pascal while the Radeon Pro 5700 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 16 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (Quadro P5200) vs 2,304 (Radeon Pro 5700). Raw compute: 8.94 TFLOPS (Quadro P5200) vs 6.221 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 5700). Boost clocks: 1746 MHz vs 1350 MHz.

Feature	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
G3D Mark Score	11,650+2%	11,469
Architecture	Pascal	RDNA 1.0
Process Node	16 nm	7 nm
Shading Units	2560+11%	2304
Compute (TFLOPS)	8.94 TFLOPS+44%	6.221 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1746 MHz+29%	1350 MHz
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	160+11%	144
L2 Cache	2 MB	4 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Quadro P5200 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro 5700 has 8 GB. The Radeon Pro 5700 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro P5200) vs 4 MB (Radeon Pro 5700) — the Radeon Pro 5700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Bus Width	256-bit+100%	128-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB	4 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro P5200) vs 12.1 (Radeon Pro 5700). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 6.

Feature	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
DirectX	12.1	12.1
Vulkan	1.1	1.4+27%
OpenGL	4.5	4.6+2%
Max Displays	4	6+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5.0 (Quadro P5200) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro 5700). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP7 vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro P5200) vs H.264,H.265 (Radeon Pro 5700).

Feature	Quadro P5200	Radeon Pro 5700
Encoder	NVENC 5.0	VCN 2.0
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP7	VCN 2.0
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC	H.264,H.265

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro P5200 draws 100W versus the Radeon Pro 5700's 130W — a 26.1% difference. The Quadro P5200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro P5200) vs 500W (Radeon Pro 5700). 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	Radeon Pro 5700
TDP	100W-23%	130W
Recommended PSU	500W	500W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	267mm
Height	0mm	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	85°C	80°C-6%
Perf/Watt	116.5+32%	88.2

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro P5200 launched at $500 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro 5700 launched at $799. The Quadro P5200 costs 37.4% less ($299 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 23.3 (Quadro P5200) vs 14.4 (Radeon Pro 5700) — the Quadro P5200 offers 61.8% better value. The Radeon Pro 5700 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2018).