Quadro K5000 vs GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1070 Ti with Quadro K5000, including specs and performance data.
1070 Ti outperforms K5000 by a whopping 266% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 164 | 510 |
| Place by popularity | 73 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 23.46 | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 15.14 | 6.10 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 November 2017 (8 years ago) | 17 August 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1070 Ti has 8279% better value for money than Quadro K5000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2432 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1683 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 255.8 | 90.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.186 TFLOPS | 2.169 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 152 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 912 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.3 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 112
+273%
| 30−35
−273%
|
| 1440p | 72
+300%
| 18−20
−300%
|
| 4K | 55
+293%
| 14−16
−293%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.56
+2238%
| 83.30
−2238%
|
| 1440p | 5.54
+2405%
| 138.83
−2405%
|
| 4K | 7.25
+2361%
| 178.50
−2361%
|
- GTX 1070 Ti has 2238% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1070 Ti has 2405% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1070 Ti has 2361% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+293%
|
27−30
−293%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+296%
|
50−55
−296%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+290%
|
21−24
−290%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+293%
|
27−30
−293%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+320%
|
30−33
−320%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+296%
|
50−55
−296%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+290%
|
21−24
−290%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 114
+280%
|
30−33
−280%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+293%
|
40−45
−293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+294%
|
35−40
−294%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+277%
|
30−33
−277%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+306%
|
35−40
−306%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+295%
|
55−60
−295%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+293%
|
27−30
−293%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+320%
|
30−33
−320%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+296%
|
50−55
−296%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+271%
|
75−80
−271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+290%
|
21−24
−290%
|
| Dota 2 | 127
+323%
|
30−33
−323%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+300%
|
27−30
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+293%
|
40−45
−293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+294%
|
35−40
−294%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+277%
|
30−33
−277%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+303%
|
30−33
−303%
|
| Metro Exodus | 66
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+306%
|
35−40
−306%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+310%
|
30−33
−310%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+295%
|
55−60
−295%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+270%
|
30−33
−270%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+290%
|
21−24
−290%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+303%
|
30−33
−303%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+278%
|
27−30
−278%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+270%
|
27−30
−270%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+306%
|
35−40
−306%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+295%
|
55−60
−295%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 109
+304%
|
27−30
−304%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+314%
|
21−24
−314%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+283%
|
65−70
−283%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+306%
|
18−20
−306%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+289%
|
45−50
−289%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+285%
|
65−70
−285%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+295%
|
21−24
−295%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
+317%
|
18−20
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+286%
|
21−24
−286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 72
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+300%
|
7−8
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 67
+272%
|
18−20
−272%
|
| Metro Exodus | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+292%
|
12−14
−292%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+295%
|
55−60
−295%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+292%
|
12−14
−292%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 105
+289%
|
27−30
−289%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+283%
|
12−14
−283%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 36
+300%
|
9−10
−300%
|
This is how GTX 1070 Ti and Quadro K5000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1070 Ti is 273% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1070 Ti is 300% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1070 Ti is 293% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.22 | 9.61 |
| Recency | 2 November 2017 | 17 August 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 122 Watt |
GTX 1070 Ti has a 266% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro K5000, on the other hand, has 48% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1070 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
