Quadro P5000 vs GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile with Quadro P5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Mobile outperforms P5000 by a moderate 19% 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 | 206 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.80 |
| Power efficiency | 18.72 | 13.10 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | TU104B | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (7 years ago) | 1 October 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,499 |
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 | 1607 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1733 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 292.6 | 277.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.362 TFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 184 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | 368 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 2.9 MB | 960 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-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1127 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 192 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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | no data | 1.4 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | 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 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 6.1 |
| 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
+53.8%
| 93
−53.8%
|
| 1440p | 94
+25.3%
| 75−80
−25.3%
|
| 4K | 65
+58.5%
| 41
−58.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 26.87 |
| 1440p | no data | 33.32 |
| 4K | no data | 60.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+17.3%
|
170−180
−17.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+22.8%
|
75−80
−22.8%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 95−100
+24.4%
|
75−80
−24.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 132
+15.8%
|
110−120
−15.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+17.3%
|
170−180
−17.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+4%
|
100−105
−4%
|
| Fortnite | 206
+46.1%
|
140−150
−46.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+22.5%
|
120−130
−22.5%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+22.8%
|
75−80
−22.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 243
+96%
|
120−130
−96%
|
| Valorant | 276
+42.3%
|
190−200
−42.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+3.5%
|
110−120
−3.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+17.3%
|
170−180
−17.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1.1%
|
270−280
−1.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
−3.1%
|
130−140
+3.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
−3.1%
|
100−105
+3.1%
|
| Fortnite | 169
+19.9%
|
140−150
−19.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+20.8%
|
120−130
−20.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
−6.9%
|
100−110
+6.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+26.8%
|
70−75
−26.8%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+22.8%
|
75−80
−22.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 214
+72.6%
|
120−130
−72.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174
+77.6%
|
98
−77.6%
|
| Valorant | 266
+37.1%
|
190−200
−37.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 117
+2.6%
|
110−120
−2.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
−8%
|
130−140
+8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
−4.2%
|
100−105
+4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 139
+15.8%
|
120−130
−15.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 174
+40.3%
|
120−130
−40.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+79.2%
|
53
−79.2%
|
| Valorant | 205
+5.7%
|
190−200
−5.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 155
+9.9%
|
140−150
−9.9%
|
| Palworld | 95−100
+22.8%
|
75−80
−22.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+26.4%
|
70−75
−26.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+18.4%
|
210−220
−18.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+23%
|
60−65
−23%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+27.9%
|
40−45
−27.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260
+15.6%
|
220−230
−15.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+38.6%
|
80−85
−38.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+27.3%
|
30−35
−27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+12.3%
|
70−75
−12.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+47%
|
80−85
−47%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+27.8%
|
50−55
−27.8%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 124
+59%
|
75−80
−59%
|
| Palworld | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45−50
−22.2%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+27.4%
|
60−65
−27.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+29.6%
|
27−30
−29.6%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
+80.6%
|
36
−80.6%
|
| Valorant | 240
+31.1%
|
180−190
−31.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+41.7%
|
45−50
−41.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
+25.3%
|
95−100
−25.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+36.8%
|
35−40
−36.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+46.4%
|
55−60
−46.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+64.9%
|
35−40
−64.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 61
+64.9%
|
35−40
−64.9%
|
| Palworld | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
This is how RTX 2080 Mobile and Quadro P5000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 54% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 25% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 59% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2080 Mobile is 96% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 8% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Mobile performs better in 59 tests (91%)
- Quadro P5000 performs better in 5 tests (8%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.29 | 30.47 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 1 October 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
RTX 2080 Mobile has a 19% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 33% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro P5000, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 50% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P5000 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.
