Quadro FX 2700M vs Quadro M5000M

Place in the ranking	300	1118
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	12.64	1.02
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM204	G94
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1,536	48
Core clock speed	975 MHz	530 MHz
Boost clock speed	1051 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,200 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	93.60	12.72
Floating-point processing power	2.995 TFLOPS	0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	96	24

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	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-HE
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	799 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	51.14 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	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.2	1.1

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. 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.

M5000M 18.13
+1808%

FX 2700M 0.95

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.

M5000M 6992
+1810%

FX 2700M 366

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

89
+2125%

4−5

−2125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

24.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

27−30
+833%

3−4

−833%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +700%	5−6 −700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +1867%	3−4 −1867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +2300%	2−3 −2300%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +2160%	5−6 −2160%
Hitman 3	35−40 +600%	5−6 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +577%	12−14 −577%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +1967%	3−4 −1967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +743%	7−8 −743%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +177%	30−35 −177%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +700%	5−6 −700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +1867%	3−4 −1867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +2300%	2−3 −2300%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +2160%	5−6 −2160%
Hitman 3	35−40 +600%	5−6 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +577%	12−14 −577%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +1967%	3−4 −1967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +743%	7−8 −743%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	126 +1160%	10−11 −1160%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +177%	30−35 −177%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +700%	5−6 −700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +2160%	5−6 −2160%
Hitman 3	35−40 +600%	5−6 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +577%	12−14 −577%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +743%	7−8 −743%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	38 +280%	10−11 −280%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +177%	30−35 −177%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50
+4800%

1−2

−4800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +1860%	5−6 −1860%
Hitman 3	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +3200%	1−2 −3200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +2600%	4−5 −2600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33
+900%

3−4

−900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14	0−1
Hitman 3	12−14	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +2200%	4−5 −2200%
Metro Exodus	18−20	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
+700%

2−3

−700%

This is how M5000M and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

M5000M is 2125% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M5000M is 4800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, M5000M surpassed FX 2700M in all 40 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.13	0.95
Recency	18 August 2015	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	65 Watt

M5000M has a 1808.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2700M, on the other hand, has 53.8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

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