Quadro 5010M vs Quadro 5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000M and Quadro 5010M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
5000M outperforms 5010M by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 618 | 671 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.70 | 3.04 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GF110 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 July 2010 (14 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
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 | 320 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 405 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5184 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 48 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 83.2 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API 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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 45−50
+18.4%
| 38
−18.4%
|
| Full HD | 70−75
+18.6%
| 59
−18.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15.8%
|
18−20
−15.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+18.2%
|
21−24
−18.2%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+19.2%
|
24−27
−19.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15.8%
|
18−20
−15.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+18.4%
|
35−40
−18.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| World of Tanks | 85−90
+19.2%
|
70−75
−19.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+18.2%
|
21−24
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15.8%
|
18−20
−15.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+18.4%
|
35−40
−18.4%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
+22.6%
|
30−35
−22.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how Quadro 5000M and Quadro 5010M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M is 18% faster in 900p
- Quadro 5000M is 19% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M is ahead in 55 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.36 | 4.40 |
| Recency | 27 July 2010 | 22 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 4 GB |
Quadro 5000M has a 21.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro 5010M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro 5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5010M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
