Quadro 410 vs Quadro 5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000M with Quadro 410, including specs and performance data.
5000M outperforms 410 by a whopping 375% 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 | 692 | 1160 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 3.82 | 2.12 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 July 2010 (16 years ago) | 7 August 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
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 | 320 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 405 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 38 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | 11.30 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5184 TFLOPS | 0.2711 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 176 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 14.26 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, 1x DisplayPort |
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 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+431%
|
16−18
−431%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Palworld | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Palworld | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.94 | 1.04 |
| Recency | 27 July 2010 | 7 August 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 38 Watt |
Quadro 5000M has a 375% higher aggregate performance score, and a 250% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro 410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 163% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 410 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 5000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Quadro 410 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.
