ATI Radeon HD 5870 vs Quadro K3100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K3100M with Radeon HD 5870, including specs and performance data.
K3100M outperforms ATI HD 5870 by a minimal 3% 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 | 639 | 648 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 0.50 |
| Power efficiency | 5.50 | 2.12 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Cypress |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 23 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
ATI HD 5870 has 355% better value for money than K3100M.
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 | 768 | 1600 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 2,154 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 188 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 45.18 | 68.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.084 TFLOPS | 2.72 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 80 |
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-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 282 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 153.6 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 | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| 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 | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 35
+16.7%
| 30−35
−16.7%
|
| 4K | 15
+7.1%
| 14−16
−7.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 57.11
−329%
| 13.30
+329%
|
| 4K | 133.27
−368%
| 28.50
+368%
|
- ATI HD 5870 has 329% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- ATI HD 5870 has 368% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+8.3%
|
60−65
−8.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+9.4%
|
85−90
−9.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+15%
|
40−45
−15%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+8.3%
|
60−65
−8.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+15%
|
40−45
−15%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+8.3%
|
60−65
−8.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+10.9%
|
55−60
−10.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| God of War | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how K3100M and ATI HD 5870 compete in popular games:
- K3100M is 17% faster in 1080p
- K3100M is 7% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.41 | 5.23 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 23 September 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 188 Watt |
K3100M has a 3.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 150.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K3100M and Radeon HD 5870.
Be aware that Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 5870 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.
