Radeon RX 7900 XTX vs Quadro 5000M

Place in the ranking	617	7
Place by popularity	not in top-100	51
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	34.75
Power efficiency	3.69	15.68
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GF100	Navi 31
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	27 July 2010 (14 years ago)	3 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	6144
Core clock speed	405 MHz	1929 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2498 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	355 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.20	959.2
Floating-point processing power	0.5184 TFLOPS	61.39 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	192
TMUs	40	384
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	96

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	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	287 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 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	1792 MB	24 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	600 MHz	2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	76.8 GB/s	960.0 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	1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI	-	+

API 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	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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.

Quadro 5000M 5.35

RX 7900 XTX 80.70
+1408%

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.

Quadro 5000M 2059

RX 7900 XTX 31031
+1407%

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.

Quadro 5000M 7767

RX 7900 XTX 148746
+1815%

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	16−18 −1438%	246 +1438%
1440p	10−12 −1540%	164 +1540%
4K	6−7 −1633%	104 +1633%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.06
1440p	no data	6.09
4K	no data	9.61

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1546%	214 +1546%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −2100%	242 +2100%
Elden Ring	12−14 −1631%	225 +1631%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −631%	110−120 +631%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1754%	241 +1754%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −955%	116 +955%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −2645%	604 +2645%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −1200%	169 +1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −844%	150−160 +844%
Valorant	14−16 −3250%	450−500 +3250%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −631%	110−120 +631%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1592%	220 +1592%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −845%	104 +845%
Dota 2	18−20 −917%	183 +917%
Elden Ring	12−14 −2354%	300−350 +2354%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −373%	123 +373%
Fortnite	30−35 −894%	300−350 +894%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −2332%	535 +2332%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −872%	175 +872%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −1254%	176 +1254%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −378%	210−220 +378%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −844%	150−160 +844%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −924%	170−180 +924%
Valorant	14−16 −3250%	450−500 +3250%
World of Tanks	85−90 −221%	270−280 +221%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −631%	110−120 +631%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1446%	201 +1446%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −809%	100 +809%
Dota 2	18−20 −889%	178 +889%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −485%	150−160 +485%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −2041%	471 +2041%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −378%	210−220 +378%
Valorant	14−16 −3250%	450−500 +3250%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4−5 −4025%	165 +4025%
Elden Ring	6−7 −3750%	230−240 +3750%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 −3200%	165 +3200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −415%	170−180 +415%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2225%	90−95 +2225%
World of Tanks	35−40 −1258%	500−550 +1258%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −988%	85−90 +988%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1511%	145 +1511%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1675%	71 +1675%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −1355%	160−170 +1355%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −4400%	360 +4400%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −2820%	146 +2820%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −3867%	238 +3867%
Valorant	14−16 −2693%	350−400 +2693%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −994%	186 +994%
Elden Ring	3−4 −4167%	120−130 +4167%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −1063%	186 +1063%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −10700%	108 +10700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −1293%	200−210 +1293%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −2033%	60−65 +2033%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −994%	186 +994%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −2175%	90−95 +2175%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1700%	36 +1700%
Dota 2	16−18 −835%	159 +835%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −1650%	100−110 +1650%
Fortnite	5−6 −1820%	95−100 +1820%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −4825%	197 +4825%
Valorant	5−6 −4480%	220−230 +4480%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

This is how Quadro 5000M and RX 7900 XTX compete in popular games:

RX 7900 XTX is 1438% faster in 1080p
RX 7900 XTX is 1540% faster in 1440p
RX 7900 XTX is 1633% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 7900 XTX is 10700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 7900 XTX is ahead in 61 test (97%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.35	80.70
Recency	27 July 2010	3 November 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	24 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	355 Watt

Quadro 5000M has 255% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 XTX, on the other hand, has a 1408.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1271.4% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 5000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 7900 XTX is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.