Quadro 5000M vs Radeon HD 6790
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6790 with Quadro 5000M, including specs and performance data.
5000M outperforms HD 6790 by a substantial 30% 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 | 771 | 692 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.73 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.96 | 3.82 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Barts | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 April 2011 (15 years ago) | 27 July 2010 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
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 | 800 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 840 MHz | 405 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.60 | 16.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.344 TFLOPS | 0.5184 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 640 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 198 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1792 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 134.4 GB/s | 76.8 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 52
−25%
| 65−70
+25%
|
| Full HD | 61
−23%
| 75−80
+23%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.44 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−17.3%
|
60−65
+17.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−23.2%
|
85−90
+23.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−20%
|
40−45
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−17.3%
|
60−65
+17.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−20%
|
40−45
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−17.3%
|
60−65
+17.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−16.1%
|
35−40
+16.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−35.1%
|
50−55
+35.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High
| Palworld | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 6790 and Quadro 5000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M is 25% faster in 900p
- Quadro 5000M is 23% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M performs better in 55 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.80 | 4.94 |
| Recency | 4 April 2011 | 27 July 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1792 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
HD 6790 has an age advantage of 8 months.
Quadro 5000M, on the other hand, has a 30% higher aggregate performance score, a 75% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6790 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6790 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro 5000M 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.
