GeForce RTX 5090 vs Quadro FX 2500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2500M with GeForce RTX 5090, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5090 outperforms 2500M by a whopping 17762% 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 | 1278 | 3 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 62 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 24.51 |
| Power efficiency | 0.89 | 12.41 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | G71 | GB202 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 September 2005 (20 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FX 2500M and RTX 5090 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 32 | 21760 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 2017 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 500 MHz | 2407 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 575 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 1,636.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 104.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 176 |
| TMUs | 24 | 680 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 680 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 170 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 21.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 96 MB |
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-III | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 1.79 TB/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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 1−2
−23400%
| 235
+23400%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−20000%
| 201
+20000%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 155 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 99.99
−1075%
| 8.51
+1075%
|
| 1440p | 99.99
−905%
| 9.95
+905%
|
| 4K | no data | 12.90 |
- RTX 5090 has 1075% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5090 has 905% lower cost per frame in 1440p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24400%
|
240−250
+24400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24400%
|
240−250
+24400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8500%
|
300−350
+8500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2419%
|
650−700
+2419%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1535%
|
270−280
+1535%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24400%
|
240−250
+24400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−17627%
|
1950−2000
+17627%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8500%
|
300−350
+8500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 69 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−7300%
|
400−450
+7300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2419%
|
650−700
+2419%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24400%
|
240−250
+24400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−17627%
|
1950−2000
+17627%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−8500%
|
300−350
+8500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−5867%
|
358
+5867%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2419%
|
650−700
+2419%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−10300%
|
300−350
+10300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−25700%
|
500−550
+25700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5900%
|
120−130
+5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−15200%
|
300−350
+15200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−16250%
|
327
+16250%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1236%
|
180−190
+1236%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−10867%
|
300−350
+10867%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 309
+0%
|
309
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 202
+0%
|
202
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 304
+0%
|
304
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 167
+0%
|
167
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 386
+0%
|
386
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 231
+0%
|
231
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
This is how FX 2500M and RTX 5090 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5090 is 23400% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5090 is 20000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5090 is 25700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5090 performs better in 26 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 92.88 |
| Recency | 29 September 2005 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 575 Watt |
FX 2500M has 1177.8% lower power consumption.
RTX 5090, on the other hand, has a 17761.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 19 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5090 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.
