Radeon RX 560X Mobile vs Quadro 7000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 7000 with Radeon RX 560X Mobile, including specs and performance data.
560X Mobile outperforms 7000 by a moderate 18% 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 | 548 | 489 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.16 | 11.74 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 512 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1202 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.3322 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 1024 KB |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 851 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 163.4 GB/s | 92.8 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | - |
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 HD | 27−30
−25.9%
| 34
+25.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 537.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 7000 and RX 560X Mobile compete in popular games:
- RX 560X Mobile is 26% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.38 | 9.91 |
| Recency | 2 May 2012 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 65 Watt |
Quadro 7000 has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 560X Mobile, on the other hand, has a 18% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 214% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560X Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 7000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 7000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 560X Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
