FirePro M5800 vs Quadro K2100M

Place in performance ranking	684	967
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.57	no data
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	GK106	Madison
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (10 years ago)	1 March 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$84.95	no data
Current price	$208 (2.4x MSRP)	$60

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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 cores	576	400
Core clock speed	667 MHz	650 MHz
Number of transistors	2,540 million	627 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	26 Watt
Texture fill rate	32.02	13.00
Floating-point performance	768.4 gflops	520.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro K2100M 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 size	medium sized	medium sized
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16

Memory type	GDDR5	DDR3, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	3000 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.0 GB/s	51.2 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	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5	5.0
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
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.

K2100M 3.50
+155%

ATI M5800 1.37

Quadro K2100M outperforms FirePro M5800 by 155% based on our aggregated 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%

K2100M 10648
+183%

ATI M5800 3760

Quadro K2100M outperforms FirePro M5800 by 183% 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 HD

24
+14.3%

−14.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Hitman 3	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Hitman 3	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	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%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1

This is how K2100M and ATI M5800 compete in popular games:

K2100M is 14.3% faster than ATI M5800 in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K2100M is 900% faster than the ATI M5800.

All in all, in popular games:

K2100M is ahead in 31 test (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.50	1.37
Recency	23 July 2013	1 March 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	26 Watt