Quadro RTX 5000 vs GeForce Go 7900 GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 7900 GS with Quadro RTX 5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 outperforms 7900 GS by a whopping 8655% 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 | 1334 | 147 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.44 |
| Power efficiency | 1.62 | 12.36 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G71 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2006 (20 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 27 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 375 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 375 MHz | 1815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.500 | 348.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 11.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 20 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 448.0 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−8567%
|
260−270
+8567%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8650%
|
350−400
+8650%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−8567%
|
260−270
+8567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−8471%
|
600−650
+8471%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8554%
|
2250−2300
+8554%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−8567%
|
1300−1350
+8567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−8400%
|
850−900
+8400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8650%
|
350−400
+8650%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−8567%
|
260−270
+8567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−8471%
|
600−650
+8471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−8233%
|
500−550
+8233%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8554%
|
2250−2300
+8554%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−8400%
|
850−900
+8400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8650%
|
350−400
+8650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−8471%
|
600−650
+8471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−8233%
|
500−550
+8233%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8554%
|
2250−2300
+8554%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−8567%
|
260−270
+8567%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−8400%
|
170−180
+8400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−8650%
|
350−400
+8650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−8567%
|
1300−1350
+8567%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−7900%
|
400−450
+7900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−8400%
|
85−90
+8400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8400%
|
170−180
+8400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.42 | 36.77 |
| Recency | 18 April 2006 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 230 Watt |
Go 7900 GS has 1050% lower power consumption.
RTX 5000, on the other hand, has a 8655% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7900 GS in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce Go 7900 GS is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 5000 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.
