Radeon RX 6500 XT vs Quadro 5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000 with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6500 XT outperforms 5000 by a whopping 390% 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 | 671 | 256 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 62 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | 49.79 |
| Power efficiency | 2.35 | 16.33 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 6500 XT has 82883% 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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 513 MHz | 2610 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 152 Watt | 107 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.57 | 180.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7223 TFLOPS | 5.765 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 44 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2.5 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 2248 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | 143.9 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 HD | 12−14
−425%
| 63
+425%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−417%
| 31
+417%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−467%
| 17
+467%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 208.25
−6493%
| 3.16
+6493%
|
| 1440p | 416.50
−6388%
| 6.42
+6388%
|
| 4K | 833.00
−7016%
| 11.71
+7016%
|
- RX 6500 XT has 6493% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6500 XT has 6388% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6500 XT has 7016% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 281
+0%
|
281
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 194
+0%
|
194
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 5000 and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6500 XT is 425% faster in 1080p
- RX 6500 XT is 417% faster in 1440p
- RX 6500 XT is 467% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.68 | 22.92 |
| Recency | 23 February 2011 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2.5 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 152 Watt | 107 Watt |
RX 6500 XT has a 389.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 220% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 42.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 RX 6500 XT 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.
