ATI FirePro M5800 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

K2000M
2.61
+90.5%

Quadro K2000M outperforms FirePro M5800 by 91% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking776965
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.28no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameN14P-Q3Madison
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (11 years old)1 March 2010 (14 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$265.27 no data
Current price$92 (0.3x MSRP)$60
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Technical specs

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 cores384400
Core clock speed745 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million627 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt26 Watt
Texture fill rate23.8413.00
Floating-point performance572.2 gflops520.0 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro K2000M and FirePro M5800 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16

Memory

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 typeDDR3DDR3, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s51.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+no data

API support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+no data

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.

K2000M 2.61
+90.5%
ATI M5800 1.37

Quadro K2000M outperforms FirePro M5800 by 91% in our combined benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

K2000M 7947
+111%
ATI M5800 3760

Quadro K2000M outperforms FirePro M5800 by 111% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 HD25
+19%
21
−19%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Hitman 3 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Hitman 3 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

This is how K2000M and ATI M5800 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • K2000M is 19% faster than ATI M5800

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K2000M is 500% faster than the ATI M5800.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K2000M is ahead in 28 tests (88%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (13%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 2.61 1.37
Recency 1 June 2012 1 March 2010
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 26 Watt

The Quadro K2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5800 in performance tests.


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

User ratings

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


NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M
ATI FirePro M5800
FirePro M5800

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.6 30 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 9 votes

Rate ATI FirePro M5800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.