Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs Quadro FX 5600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
FX 4600 FX 4600 SDI FX 5600 FX 5600 Mac Edition Plex 1000 Model IV Plex 2100 S4 Tesla C870 Tesla D870 Tesla S870
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
340 OEM 350 350 640SP 350 Fake Card 350 OEM 350X OEM 360 360 896SP 360E 370 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5600 with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

FX 5600
2007, $2,999
1536 MB GDDR3, 171 Watt
1.25

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms FX 5600 by a whopping 102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FX 5600 FX 5600
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1073864
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.56no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameG80Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date5 March 2007 (18 years ago)14 January 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores128384
Core clock speed600 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors681 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)171 Wattno data
Texture fill rate38.40no data
Floating-point processing power0.3456 TFLOPSno data
ROPs24no data
TMUs32no data
L2 Cache96 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16no data
Length254 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1536 MBno data
Memory bus width384 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Videono data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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 HD6−7
−133%
14
+133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p499.83no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 5600 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 133% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.25 2.53
Recency 5 March 2007 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 90 nm 28 nm

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 102.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 5600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 5600 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600
Quadro FX 5600
AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FX 5600 Quadro FX 5600
vs
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
HD 7730 Radeon HD 7730
FX 5600 Quadro FX 5600
vs
FirePro V3900 FirePro V3900
FX 4600 Quadro FX 4600
vs
P104-100 P104 100
FX 4600 Quadro FX 4600
vs
T500 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile
FX 4600 Quadro FX 4600
vs
RX 7900 XT Radeon RX 7900 XT
FX 4600 SDI Quadro FX 4600 SDI
vs
T600 Mobile Quadro T600 Mobile
FX 4600 SDI Quadro FX 4600 SDI
vs
RX 6650M XT Radeon RX 6650M XT
FX 5600 Quadro FX 5600
vs
R7 430 OEM Radeon R7 430 OEM
FX 5600 Quadro FX 5600
vs
6800 Ultra DDL GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL
FX 5600 Quadro FX 5600
vs
ATI FireMV 2200 PCI FireMV 2200 PCI
FX 5600 Quadro FX 5600
vs
T1000 Max-Q Quadro T1000 Max-Q
FX 5600 Quadro FX 5600
vs
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G1 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G1

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.7 7 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 21 votes

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 5600 or Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.