GeForce RTX 5060 vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with GeForce RTX 5060, including specs and performance data.
5060 outperforms P5000 by an impressive 64% 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 | 208 | 70 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 8 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.61 | 100.00 |
| Power efficiency | 12.81 | 26.05 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GB206 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 19 May 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 5060 has 3731% better value for money than Quadro P5000.
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 | 2048 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 2280 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 2497 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 21,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 145 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 299.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 19.18 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 160 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 120 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 30 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 3.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 32 MB |
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 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | 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 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 | 93
−75.3%
| 163
+75.3%
|
| 1440p | 45−50
−75.6%
| 79
+75.6%
|
| 4K | 41
−29.3%
| 53
+29.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 26.87
−1365%
| 1.83
+1365%
|
| 1440p | 55.53
−1367%
| 3.78
+1367%
|
| 4K | 60.95
−980%
| 5.64
+980%
|
- RTX 5060 has 1365% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5060 has 1367% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5060 has 980% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−51.4%
|
260−270
+51.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
−75.4%
|
120−130
+75.4%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−166%
|
178
+166%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−33.3%
|
150−160
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−51.4%
|
260−270
+51.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
−75.4%
|
120−130
+75.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
−149%
|
247
+149%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−55%
|
210−220
+55%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
−60.8%
|
190−200
+60.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
−163%
|
255
+163%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−110%
|
141
+110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−41.5%
|
170−180
+41.5%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−41.8%
|
270−280
+41.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−33.3%
|
150−160
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−51.4%
|
260−270
+51.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−1.1%
|
270−280
+1.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
−75.4%
|
120−130
+75.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−63%
|
220−230
+63%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
−127%
|
225
+127%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−55%
|
210−220
+55%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
−60.8%
|
190−200
+60.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
−132%
|
225
+132%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
−68.2%
|
180
+68.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−61.2%
|
108
+61.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
−77.1%
|
120−130
+77.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−41.5%
|
170−180
+41.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
−186%
|
280
+186%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−41.8%
|
270−280
+41.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−33.3%
|
150−160
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
−75.4%
|
120−130
+75.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−63%
|
220−230
+63%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
−114%
|
212
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
−60.8%
|
190−200
+60.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
−20.9%
|
81
+20.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−41.5%
|
170−180
+41.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
−168%
|
142
+168%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−41.8%
|
270−280
+41.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
−55%
|
210−220
+55%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−94.4%
|
130−140
+94.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−67%
|
350−400
+67%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−122%
|
131
+122%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−81.4%
|
75−80
+81.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
−34.8%
|
300−350
+34.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−50%
|
120−130
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−93.9%
|
60−65
+93.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
−100%
|
144
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−85.5%
|
150−160
+85.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−65.7%
|
58
+65.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−96.3%
|
106
+96.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
−79.2%
|
130−140
+79.2%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−87.9%
|
60−65
+87.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−103%
|
124
+103%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
−65%
|
30−35
+65%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−77.8%
|
45−50
+77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
−147%
|
89
+147%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−58.4%
|
290−300
+58.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−72.9%
|
80−85
+72.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−87.9%
|
60−65
+87.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−57.9%
|
150−160
+57.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−94.7%
|
74
+94.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−94.5%
|
100−110
+94.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
−60%
|
32
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−128%
|
80−85
+128%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−100%
|
70−75
+100%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and RTX 5060 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5060 is 75% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5060 is 76% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5060 is 29% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5060 is 186% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5060 performs better in 62 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.64 | 46.91 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 19 May 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 145 Watt |
Quadro P5000 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 45% lower power consumption.
RTX 5060, on the other hand, has a 63.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5060 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5060 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.
