Radeon Pro W5300M vs Quadro P2000

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking290not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.73no data
Power efficiency17.39no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGP106Navi 14
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)13 November 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 no data

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 cores10241280
Core clock speed1076 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz1250 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate94.72100.0
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS3.2 TFLOPS
ROPs4032
TMUs6480

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length201 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount5 GB4 GB
Memory bus width160 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/s192.0 GB/s

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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA6.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 February 2017 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 85 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 13.3% lower power consumption.

Pro W5300M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Quadro P2000 and Radeon Pro W5300M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while Radeon Pro W5300M is a mobile workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Quadro P2000
AMD Radeon Pro W5300M
Radeon Pro W5300M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 625 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon Pro W5300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.