Radeon RX 7800 XT vs Quadro M5000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M5000 with Radeon RX 7800 XT, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M5000
2015, $2,857
8 GB 256-bit, 150 Watt
22.43
RX 7800 XT
2023, $499
16 GB GDDR6, 263 Watt
58.61
+161%

7800 XT outperforms M5000 by a whopping 161% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking28847
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.3370.08
Power efficiency11.6217.31
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameGM204Navi 32
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date29 June 2015 (11 years ago)25 August 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,856.99 $499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

RX 7800 XT has 5169% better value for money than Quadro M5000.

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 cores20483840
Core clock speed861 MHz1295 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHz2430 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt263 Watt
Texture fill rate132.9583.2
Floating-point processing power4.252 TFLOPS37.32 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs128240
Ray Tracing Coresno data60
L0 Cacheno data960 KB
L1 Cache768 KB768 KB
L2 Cache2 MB4 MB
L3 Cacheno data64 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2" (5.1 cm)2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin2x 8-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 type256 BitGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz2438 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 211 GB/s624.1 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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 DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Syncno data
HDMI-+

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
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
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 22.43
RX 7800 XT 58.61
+161%

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 9362
Samples: 461
RX 7800 XT 24467
+161%
Samples: 11363

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 HD80−85
−62.6%
214
1440p45−50
−63.4%
123
4K27−3072
+167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p35.712.33
+93.5%
1440p63.494.06
+93.6%
4K105.816.93
+93.5%
  • RX 7800 XT has 93% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 7800 XT has 94% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 7800 XT has 93% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 324 324
Counter-Strike 2 351 351
Cyberpunk 2077 248 248
Resident Evil 4 Remake 272 272

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 243 243
Battlefield 5 160−170 160−170
Counter-Strike 2 355 355
Cyberpunk 2077 196 196
Far Cry 5 204 204
Fortnite 270−280 270−280
Forza Horizon 4 278 278
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 145 145
Battlefield 5 160−170 160−170
Counter-Strike 2 283 283
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 163 163
Far Cry 5 196 196
Fortnite 270−280 270−280
Forza Horizon 4 261 261
Grand Theft Auto V 178 178
Metro Exodus 172 172
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 366 366
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170 160−170
Cyberpunk 2077 150 150
Far Cry 5 182 182
Forza Horizon 4 222 222
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 200 200
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 270−280 270−280

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 175 175
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 400−450 400−450
Grand Theft Auto V 140 140
Metro Exodus 106 106
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 350−400 350−400

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150 140−150
Cyberpunk 2077 99 99
Far Cry 5 176 176
Forza Horizon 4 202 202
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 147 147

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 50−55 50−55
Counter-Strike 2 42 42
Grand Theft Auto V 152 152
Metro Exodus 63 63
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 118 118
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 100−110
Counter-Strike 2 75−80 75−80
Cyberpunk 2077 45 45
Far Cry 5 104 104
Forza Horizon 4 164 164
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how Quadro M5000 and RX 7800 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 7800 XT is 168% faster in 1080p
  • RX 7800 XT is 173% faster in 1440p
  • RX 7800 XT is 167% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.43 58.61
Recency 29 June 2015 25 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 263 Watt

Quadro M5000 has 43% lower power consumption.

RX 7800 XT, on the other hand, has a 161% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 82% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7800 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 7800 XT is a desktop 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
4.4 5365 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7800 XT 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 RX 7800 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.