Radeon HD 7650A vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with Radeon HD 7650A, including specs and performance data.
P5000 outperforms HD 7650A by a whopping 2185% 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 | 206 | 1056 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.77 | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 12.96 | 3.09 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Onega |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (9 years ago) | 5 January 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $262 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro P5000 has 5440% better value for money than HD 7650A.
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 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 14.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 0.576 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 160 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB |
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 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs |
| 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 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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
+2225%
| 4−5
−2225%
|
| 4K | 41
+4000%
| 1−2
−4000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 26.87
+144%
| 65.50
−144%
|
| 4K | 60.95
+330%
| 262.00
−330%
|
- Quadro P5000 has 144% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Quadro P5000 has 330% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+2386%
|
7−8
−2386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+2386%
|
7−8
−2386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+2675%
|
4−5
−2675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+2250%
|
6−7
−2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+2300%
|
5−6
−2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+2350%
|
4−5
−2350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+2380%
|
5−6
−2380%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+2325%
|
8−9
−2325%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+2386%
|
7−8
−2386%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2192%
|
12−14
−2192%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+2600%
|
5−6
−2600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+2675%
|
4−5
−2675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+2250%
|
6−7
−2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+2300%
|
5−6
−2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+2350%
|
4−5
−2350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+2600%
|
4−5
−2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+2267%
|
3−4
−2267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+2380%
|
5−6
−2380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+2350%
|
4−5
−2350%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+2325%
|
8−9
−2325%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+2600%
|
5−6
−2600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+2675%
|
4−5
−2675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+2300%
|
5−6
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+2380%
|
5−6
−2380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
+2550%
|
2−3
−2550%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+2325%
|
8−9
−2325%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+2250%
|
6−7
−2250%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+2300%
|
3−4
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+2300%
|
9−10
−2300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2400%
|
7−8
−2400%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+2200%
|
10−11
−2200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+2550%
|
2−3
−2550%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+2225%
|
8−9
−2225%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+2275%
|
4−5
−2275%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and HD 7650A compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is 2225% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5000 is 4000% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.39 | 1.33 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 5 January 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 33 Watt |
Quadro P5000 has a 2185% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
HD 7650A, on the other hand, has 203% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7650A in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 7650A is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
