Quadro M5000 vs GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile with Quadro M5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Mobile outperforms M5000 by an impressive 62% 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 | 153 | 286 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.33 |
| Power efficiency | 18.72 | 11.58 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU104B | GM204 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (7 years ago) | 29 June 2015 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,856.99 |
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 | 2944 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 861 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 292.6 | 132.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.362 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 184 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | 368 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 2.9 MB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2" (5.1 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 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 | GDDR6 | 256 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | Up to 211 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | no data | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 5.2 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 143
+68.2%
| 85−90
−68.2%
|
| 1440p | 94
+70.9%
| 55−60
−70.9%
|
| 4K | 65
+62.5%
| 40−45
−62.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 33.61 |
| 1440p | no data | 51.95 |
| 4K | no data | 71.42 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+69.2%
|
120−130
−69.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 132
+65%
|
80−85
−65%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+69.2%
|
120−130
−69.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+73.3%
|
60−65
−73.3%
|
| Fortnite | 206
+71.7%
|
120−130
−71.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+63.3%
|
90−95
−63.3%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 243
+62%
|
150−160
−62%
|
| Valorant | 276
+62.4%
|
170−180
−62.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+68.6%
|
70−75
−68.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+69.2%
|
120−130
−69.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+63.5%
|
170−180
−63.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
+63.8%
|
80−85
−63.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
| Fortnite | 169
+69%
|
100−105
−69%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+70.6%
|
85−90
−70.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+68.3%
|
60−65
−68.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+63.6%
|
55−60
−63.6%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 214
+64.6%
|
130−140
−64.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174
+74%
|
100−105
−74%
|
| Valorant | 266
+66.3%
|
160−170
−66.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 117
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+66.7%
|
75−80
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+74.5%
|
55−60
−74.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 139
+63.5%
|
85−90
−63.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 174
+74%
|
100−105
−74%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+72.7%
|
55−60
−72.7%
|
| Valorant | 205
+70.8%
|
120−130
−70.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 155
+63.2%
|
95−100
−63.2%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+65.5%
|
55−60
−65.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+71.3%
|
150−160
−71.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+66.7%
|
45−50
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+75%
|
100−105
−75%
|
| Valorant | 260
+62.5%
|
160−170
−62.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+64.3%
|
70−75
−64.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+64%
|
50−55
−64%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+62.7%
|
75−80
−62.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+70%
|
40−45
−70%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 124
+65.3%
|
75−80
−65.3%
|
| Palworld | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+75.6%
|
45−50
−75.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
+62.5%
|
40−45
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 240
+71.4%
|
140−150
−71.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+70%
|
40−45
−70%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
+70%
|
70−75
−70%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+64%
|
50−55
−64%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 61
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
This is how RTX 2080 Mobile and Quadro M5000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 68% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 71% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 63% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.29 | 22.45 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 29 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
RTX 2080 Mobile has a 62% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M5000 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.
