Quadro P5000 vs Radeon Pro Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Duo and Quadro P5000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P5000 outperforms Pro Duo by an impressive 50% 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 | 322 | 214 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.02 | 2.74 |
| Power efficiency | 4.50 | 13.13 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Capsaicin | GP104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 26 April 2016 (10 years ago) | 1 October 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro P5000 has 36% better value for money than Pro Duo.
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 | 4096 ×2 | 2048 |
| Compute units | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1607 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1733 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 ×2 | 277.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS ×2 | 8.873 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 160 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 960 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 277 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 3x 8-pin | 1x 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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1127 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s ×2 | 192 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Display Port | no data | 1.4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| 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 | DirectX® 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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 | 60−65 | 93
+55%
|
| 4K | 27−30 | 41
+51.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 24.98
+7%
| 26.87 |
| 4K | 55.52
+8.9%
| 60.95 |
- Pro Duo has 7% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Pro Duo has 9% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75−80 | 75−80 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Dota 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Metro Exodus | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98 | 98 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Dota 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53 | 53 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 220−230 | 220−230 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55 | 50−55 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36 | 36 |
| Valorant | 180−190 | 180−190 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Dota 2 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 35−40 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40 | 35−40 |
This is how Pro Duo and Quadro P5000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is 55% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5000 is 52% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.18 | 30.31 |
| Recency | 26 April 2016 | 1 October 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro P5000 has a 50% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 71% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Duo in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
