Quadro 5000 vs GeForce GTX 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680 with Quadro 5000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 680 outperforms 5000 by a whopping 189% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 372 | 642 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.65 | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 5.10 | 2.27 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 23 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 680 has 1667% better value for money than Quadro 5000.
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 | 1536 | 352 |
| Core clock speed | 1006 MHz | 513 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1058 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 152 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 135.4 | 22.57 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.25 TFLOPS | 0.7223 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 40 |
| TMUs | 128 | 44 |
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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 254 mm | 248 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 2.5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 45
+221%
| 14−16
−221%
|
| Full HD | 75
+213%
| 24−27
−213%
|
| 4K | 25
+213%
| 8−9
−213%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.65
+1465%
| 104.13
−1465%
|
| 4K | 19.96
+1465%
| 312.38
−1465%
|
- GTX 680 has 1465% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 680 has 1465% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+217%
|
24−27
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+217%
|
24−27
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+213%
|
16−18
−213%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+229%
|
35−40
−229%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+217%
|
24−27
−217%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 224
+199%
|
75−80
−199%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+193%
|
30−33
−193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+211%
|
18−20
−211%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+213%
|
16−18
−213%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+229%
|
35−40
−229%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+193%
|
30−33
−193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+213%
|
16−18
−213%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+229%
|
35−40
−229%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+191%
|
35−40
−191%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+208%
|
40−45
−208%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+216%
|
45−50
−216%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+217%
|
12−14
−217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
This is how GTX 680 and Quadro 5000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680 is 221% faster in 900p
- GTX 680 is 213% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680 is 213% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.50 | 4.33 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 23 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 2.5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 152 Watt |
GTX 680 has a 188.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 5000, on the other hand, has a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 28.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop card while Quadro 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.
