FirePro W600 vs Quadro 5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000 and FirePro W600, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
5000 outperforms W600 by a moderate 16% 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 | 667 | 712 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 0.51 |
| Power efficiency | 2.29 | 4.00 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 13 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
FirePro W600 has 219% better value for money than Quadro 5000.
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 | 352 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 513 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 152 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.57 | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7223 TFLOPS | 0.768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 16 |
| TMUs | 44 | 32 |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 163 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | 2.5 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 6x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.92 | 4.24 |
| Recency | 23 February 2011 | 13 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2.5 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 152 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro 5000 has a 16% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.
FirePro W600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 102.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W600 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.
