Quadro K5000 vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 with Quadro K5000, including specs and performance data.
K5000 outperforms GTX 590 by a significant 20% 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 | 571 | 508 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.69 | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 1.70 | 6.09 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (15 years ago) | 17 August 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 590 has 146% 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 | 1024 ×2 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | 90.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | 2.169 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | 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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | 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.
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:
| 900p | 47
−17%
| 55−60
+17%
|
| Full HD | 111
−17.1%
| 130−140
+17.1%
|
| 1200p | 112
−16.1%
| 130−140
+16.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30
+205%
| 19.22
−205%
|
- GTX 590 has 205% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−12.2%
|
55−60
+12.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−15.9%
|
95−100
+15.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−18.1%
|
150−160
+18.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−14.8%
|
70−75
+14.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−12.2%
|
55−60
+12.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−15.9%
|
95−100
+15.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−14.8%
|
70−75
+14.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−15.9%
|
95−100
+15.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−12.2%
|
55−60
+12.2%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−12.9%
|
70−75
+12.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−13.6%
|
50−55
+13.6%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−14.5%
|
95−100
+14.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTX 590 and Quadro K5000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro K5000 is 17% faster in 900p
- Quadro K5000 is 17% faster in 1080p
- Quadro K5000 is 16% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.02 | 9.61 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 17 August 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 122 Watt |
Quadro K5000 has a 20% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 199% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 590 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 590 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.
