Quadro RTX 5000 vs GeForce 7150M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 7150M with Quadro RTX 5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 outperforms 7150M by a whopping 91775% 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 | 1544 | 143 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.11 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.32 |
| Architecture | no data | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | C67 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2006 (19 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 425 MHz | 1815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 348.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 11.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | shared Memory | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 448.0 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 | no data | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | shared Memory | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−89900%
|
1800−1850
+89900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−91567%
|
5500−5550
+91567%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−91639%
|
21100−21150
+91639%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−91567%
|
8250−8300
+91567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−91329%
|
6400−6450
+91329%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−89900%
|
1800−1850
+89900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−91567%
|
5500−5550
+91567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−90900%
|
4550−4600
+90900%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−91639%
|
21100−21150
+91639%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−91329%
|
6400−6450
+91329%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−89900%
|
1800−1850
+89900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−91567%
|
5500−5550
+91567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−90900%
|
4550−4600
+90900%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−91639%
|
21100−21150
+91639%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−89900%
|
1800−1850
+89900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−89900%
|
900−950
+89900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−89900%
|
900−950
+89900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−89900%
|
900−950
+89900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−91686%
|
12850−12900
+91686%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−89900%
|
900−950
+89900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−89900%
|
900−950
+89900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−89900%
|
900−950
+89900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.04 | 36.75 |
| Recency | 1 February 2006 | 13 August 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
RTX 5000 has a 91775% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7150M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 7150M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
