Radeon HD 6930 vs Quadro 5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000 with Radeon HD 6930, including specs and performance data.
HD 6930 outperforms 5000 by a considerable 44% 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 | 692 | 604 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | 1.90 |
| Power efficiency | 2.38 | 2.79 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Cayman |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 February 2011 (15 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $180 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
HD 6930 has 2614% 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 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 513 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 2,640 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 152 Watt | 186 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.57 | 60.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7223 TFLOPS | 1.92 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 44 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 640 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 220 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2.5 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |
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 DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | - |
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 | 4.70 | 6.75 |
| Recency | 23 February 2011 | 1 December 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2.5 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 152 Watt | 186 Watt |
Quadro 5000 has a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 22% lower power consumption.
HD 6930, on the other hand, has a 44% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 9 months.
The Radeon HD 6930 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6930 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
