TITAN RTX vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with TITAN RTX, including specs and performance data.
TITAN RTX outperforms P5000 by a considerable 48% 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 | 215 | 94 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.74 | 5.49 |
| Power efficiency | 13.13 | 12.53 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | TU102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (10 years ago) | 18 December 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
TITAN RTX has 100% better value for money than Quadro P5000.
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 | 2048 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 18.6 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 280 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 160 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 4.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 6 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 672.0 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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
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 |
| 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 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.9 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 93 | 161
+73.1%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
−36.3%
| 102 |
| 4K | 41 | 73
+78%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 26.87 | 15.52
+42.2%
|
| 1440p | 38.45 | 24.50
+36.3%
|
| 4K | 60.95 | 34.23
+43.8%
|
- TITAN RTX has 42% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- TITAN RTX has 36% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- TITAN RTX has 44% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180 | 353
+104%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 79
+12.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 167
+146%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75−80 | 202
+159%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 163
+43%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180 | 342
+97.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 79
+12.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105 | 165
+65%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 169
+19%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 187
+55.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 145
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 202
+62.9%
|
| Valorant | 190−200 | 348
+77.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 164
+43.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180 | 270
+56.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280
+1.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 79
+12.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140 | 155
+14.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105 | 156
+56%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 176
+23.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 186
+55%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110 | 152
+42.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 117
+72.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75 | 134
+88.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 163
+31.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98 | 267
+172%
|
| Valorant | 190−200 | 336
+71.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 160
+40.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 78
+11.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140 | 148
+9.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105 | 146
+46%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 175
+45.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 94
+38.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 136
+9.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53 | 139
+162%
|
| Valorant | 190−200 | 236
+20.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+6%
|
134 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 157
+118%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220 | 300−350
+49.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65 | 114
+90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 85
+97.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 220−230 | 307
+34.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 110−120
+36.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 66
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75 | 134
+83.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85 | 157
+89.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40 | 69
+97.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55 | 90−95
+74.1%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 120−130
+59%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 45
+32.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65 | 134
+116%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22 | 30−33
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 55
+104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36 | 103
+186%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 300
+63%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 97
+98%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 55−60
+64.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 33
+120%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100 | 146
+53.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40 | 80
+111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 114
+104%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22 | 38
+90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 96
+159%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 74
+100%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and TITAN RTX compete in popular games:
- TITAN RTX is 73% faster in 1080p
- TITAN RTX is 57% faster in 1440p
- TITAN RTX is 78% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 6% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the TITAN RTX is 186% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- TITAN RTX performs better in 63 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.30 | 44.98 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 18 December 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 280 Watt |
Quadro P5000 has 64% lower power consumption.
TITAN RTX, on the other hand, has a 48% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
The TITAN RTX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation graphics card while TITAN RTX 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.
