Radeon RX Vega 5 vs Quadro P400

Place in the ranking	685	656
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.44	no data
Power efficiency	9.86	21.34
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code name	GP107	Vega
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	7 February 2017 (7 years ago)	7 January 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$119.99	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 cores	256	320
Core clock speed	1228 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1252 MHz	1400 MHz
Number of transistors	3,300 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	20.03	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.641 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	16	no data

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1002 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	32.06 GB/s	no data
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

3x mini-DisplayPort

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12_1
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.2.131	-
CUDA	6.1	-

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

16−18

−18.8%

19
+18.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.50

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7 +0%	7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +0%	9 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +0%	21 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18 +0%	18 +0%
Valorant	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	21 +0%	21 +0%
Fortnite	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	13 +0%	13 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 +0%	41 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4 +0%	4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	50 +0%	50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	37 +0%	37 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +0%	14 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
World of Tanks	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Valorant	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Fortnite	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Valorant	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

This is how Quadro P400 and RX Vega 5 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 5 is 19% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.24	4.59
Recency	7 February 2017	7 January 2020
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	15 Watt

RX Vega 5 has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P400 and Radeon RX Vega 5.

Be aware that Quadro P400 is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook one.

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