Radeon RX 480 vs Quadro M5000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M5000 outperforms Radeon RX 480 by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 208 | 230 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.99 | 11.75 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) | Polaris (2016−2019) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Polaris 10 Ellesmere |
| GCN generation | no data | 4th Gen |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (8 years ago) | 29 June 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,856.99 | $229 |
| Current price | $823 (0.3x MSRP) | $174 (0.8x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 480 has 47% better value for money than Quadro M5000.
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 | 2048 | 2304 |
| Compute units | no data | 36 |
| Core clock speed | 861 MHz | 1120 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1266 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 132.9 | 182.3 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,252 gflops | 5,834 gflops |
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).
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Memory type | 256 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 211 GB/s | 224 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | DVI-I DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | no data | 2.0 |
| DisplayPort support | no data | 1.4HDR |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | n/a |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | n/a |
| FRTC | no data | 1 |
| FreeSync | no data | + |
| HD3D | no data | n/a |
| LiquidVR | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| TressFX | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | n/a |
| ZeroCore | no data | + |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| Mantle | no data | n/a |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 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.
Quadro M5000 outperforms Radeon RX 480 by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro M5000 outperforms Radeon RX 480 by 9% in Passmark.
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 | 80−85
+2.6%
| 78
−2.6%
|
| 1440p | 55−60
+1.9%
| 54
−1.9%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+0%
| 35
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.26 | 22.29 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 29 June 2016 |
| Cost | $2856.99 | $229 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M5000 and Radeon RX 480.
Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 480 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
