Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs Quadro 5000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
4000 4000 Mac Edition 5000 5000 SDI 6000 6000 SDI Tesla C2050 Tesla C2070 Tesla M2050 Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070-Q Tesla S2050
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
340 OEM 350 350 640SP 350 Fake Card 350 OEM 350X OEM 360 360 896SP 360E 370 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 5000 with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

Quadro 5000
2011, $2,499
2.5 GB GDDR5, 152 Watt
4.69
+84.6%

5000 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by an impressive 85% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking690870
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.07no data
Power efficiency2.37no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameGF100Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date23 February 2011 (14 years ago)14 January 2014 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores352384
Core clock speed513 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)152 Wattno data
Texture fill rate22.57no data
Floating-point processing power0.7223 TFLOPSno data
ROPs40no data
TMUs44no data
L1 Cache704 KBno data
L2 Cache640 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2.5 GBno data
Memory bus width320 Bitno data
Memory clock speed750 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth120.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortno data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.0-

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 HD24−27
+71.4%
14
−71.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p104.13no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Quadro 5000 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 5000 is 71% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.69 2.54
Recency 23 February 2011 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

Quadro 5000 has a 84.6% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA Quadro 5000
Quadro 5000
AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
PRO WX 2100 Radeon PRO WX 2100
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
ATI HD 4850 Radeon HD 4850
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
Quadro 400 Quadro 400
vs
Quadro4 980 XGL Quadro4 980 XGL
Quadro 400 Quadro 400
vs
GTX 1060 5 GB GTX 1060 5 GB
Quadro 400 Quadro 400
vs
Pro WX 4170 Mobile Pro WX 4170 Mobile
Quadro 400 Quadro 400
vs
Ice Lake GT3e Lake GT3e
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
HD Graphics 505 Graphics 505
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
R7 350X OEM R7 350X OEM
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
R7 250E R7 250E
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
HD 7720 OEM HD 7720 OEM
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
GTX 680 Mac Edition GTX 680 Mac Edition
Quadro 5000 Quadro 5000
vs
GT 620 OEM GT 620 OEM

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.5 34 votes

Rate Quadro 5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23 votes

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 5000 or Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.