ATI Radeon HD 5670 vs Quadro M4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000M with Radeon HD 5670, including specs and performance data.
M4000M outperforms HD 5670 by a whopping 669% 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 | 392 | 942 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.23 |
| Power efficiency | 11.27 | 2.29 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Redwood |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 14 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $119 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1,280 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 775 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1013 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 64 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.00 | 15.50 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.496 TFLOPS | 0.62 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 40 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 64 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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:
| 900p | 190−200
+631%
| 26
−631%
|
| Full HD | 63
+90.9%
| 33
−90.9%
|
| 4K | 20
+900%
| 2−3
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.61 |
| 4K | no data | 59.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+1180%
|
5−6
−1180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+215%
|
35−40
−215%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+1180%
|
5−6
−1180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+398%
|
40−45
−398%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+348%
|
21−24
−348%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+215%
|
35−40
−215%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+1180%
|
5−6
−1180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+348%
|
21−24
−348%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+215%
|
35−40
−215%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+950%
|
8−9
−950%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+693%
|
14−16
−693%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+658%
|
18−20
−658%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+1069%
|
12−14
−1069%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+620%
|
5−6
−620%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+720%
|
10−11
−720%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+1225%
|
4−5
−1225%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
This is how M4000M and ATI HD 5670 compete in popular games:
- M4000M is 631% faster in 900p
- M4000M is 91% faster in 1080p
- M4000M is 900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the M4000M is 2700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, M4000M surpassed ATI HD 5670 in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.68 | 1.91 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 14 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 64 Watt |
M4000M has a 668.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 5670, on the other hand, has 56.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5670 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 5670 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.
