Radeon Pro 460 vs Quadro M5000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M5000 with Radeon Pro 460, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M5000
2015, $2,857
8 GB 256-bit, 150 Watt
22.36
+172%

M5000 outperforms Pro 460 by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking292570
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.31no data
Power efficiency11.6318.34
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGM204Baffin
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date29 June 2015 (11 years ago)30 October 2016 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,856.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores20481024
Core clock speed861 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHz907 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate132.958.05
Floating-point processing power4.252 TFLOPS1.858 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs12864
L1 Cache768 KB256 KB
L2 Cache2 MB1024 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length267 mmno data
Width2" (5.1 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone
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 type256 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1270 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 211 GB/s81.28 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Syncno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync-+
ECC (Error Correcting Code)+no data
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
High-Performance Video I/O6+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.2-

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.

Quadro M5000 22.36
+172%
Pro 460 8.23

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.

Quadro M5000 9373
+172%
Samples: 470
Pro 460 3452
Samples: 3

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 HD110−12041
−62.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p25.97no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 40−45 40−45
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 16−18
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 14−16
Resident Evil 4 Remake 14−16 14−16

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 35−40 35−40
Counter-Strike 2 40−45 40−45
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 16−18
Far Cry 5 27−30 27−30
Fortnite 50−55 50−55
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 35−40
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 14−16
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33 30−33
Valorant 80−85 80−85

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35−40 35−40
Counter-Strike 2 40−45 40−45
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140 130−140
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 16−18
Dota 2 60−65 60−65
Far Cry 5 27−30 27−30
Fortnite 50−55 50−55
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 35−40
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33 30−33
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 14−16
Metro Exodus 16−18 16−18
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33 30−33
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29 29
Valorant 80−85 80−85

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 16−18
Dota 2 60−65 60−65
Far Cry 5 27−30 27−30
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 35−40
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 14−16
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33 30−33
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17 17
Valorant 80−85 80−85

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 50−55 50−55

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 14−16
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65 60−65
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11 10−11
Metro Exodus 9−10 9−10
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 40−45
Valorant 80−85 80−85

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20 18−20
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 7−8
Far Cry 5 16−18 16−18
Forza Horizon 4 20−22 20−22
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10 9−10
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12 10−12

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 16−18 16−18

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 3−4
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 18−20
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 3−4
Metro Exodus 4−5 4−5
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 8−9
Valorant 35−40 35−40

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10 9−10
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 3−4
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 2−3
Dota 2 30−35 30−35
Far Cry 5 8−9 8−9
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 14−16
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 3−4
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 8−9

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9 8−9

This is how Quadro M5000 and Pro 460 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M5000 is 168% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.36 8.23
Recency 29 June 2015 30 October 2016
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro M5000 has a 172% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Pro 460, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 77% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 460 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro 460 is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 88 votes

Rate Quadro M5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 36 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M5000 or Radeon Pro 460, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.