Quadro RTX 8000 vs 5000M

Place in performance ranking	578	52
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.08	9.90
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	Fermi	TU102
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	27 July 2010 (13 years ago)	13 August 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$9,999
Current price	$3732	$3230 (0.3x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 8000 has 12275% better value for money than Quadro 5000M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	320	4608
Core clock speed	405 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.20	509.8
Floating-point performance	518.4 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro 5000M and Quadro RTX 8000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 GB	48 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	76.8 GB/s	672.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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

4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Quadro 5000M 5.32

RTX 8000 50.34
+846%

RTX 8000 outperforms 5000M by 846% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro 5000M 2059

RTX 8000 19480
+846%

RTX 8000 outperforms 5000M by 846% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10
−844%

85−90

+844%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −800%	90−95 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Battlefield 5	16−18 −838%	150−160 +838%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −841%	160−170 +841%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −841%	160−170 +841%
Hitman 3	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −800%	90−95 +800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −800%	90−95 +800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −800%	90−95 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Battlefield 5	16−18 −838%	150−160 +838%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −841%	160−170 +841%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −841%	160−170 +841%
Hitman 3	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −800%	90−95 +800%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −838%	75−80 +838%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −800%	90−95 +800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −800%	90−95 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Battlefield 5	16−18 −838%	150−160 +838%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −841%	160−170 +841%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −838%	75−80 +838%
Hitman 3	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −838%	75−80 +838%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −838%	75−80 +838%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Hitman 3	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.32	50.34
Recency	27 July 2010	13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	48 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	260 Watt