Radeon RX 6500 XT vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.
P5000 outperforms 6500 XT by a substantial 32% 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 | 207 | 270 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 84 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.77 | 48.55 |
| Power efficiency | 12.97 | 16.47 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (9 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 6500 XT has 1653% 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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 2610 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 2815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 107 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 180.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 5.765 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 16 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 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 2248 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 143.9 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 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| 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
+47.6%
| 63
−47.6%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
+29%
| 31
−29%
|
| 4K | 41
+141%
| 17
−141%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 26.87
−751%
| 3.16
+751%
|
| 1440p | 62.48
−873%
| 6.42
+873%
|
| 4K | 60.95
−421%
| 11.71
+421%
|
- RX 6500 XT has 751% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6500 XT has 873% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6500 XT has 421% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−61.5%
|
281
+61.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
−4.3%
|
72
+4.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+22.6%
|
90−95
−22.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−11.5%
|
194
+11.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+27.8%
|
54
−27.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+22%
|
90−95
−22%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
−2%
|
102
+2%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+20.5%
|
110−120
−20.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+29%
|
90−95
−29%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
−9.2%
|
107
+9.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+36.3%
|
90−95
−36.3%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+19%
|
160−170
−19%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+22.6%
|
90−95
−22.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+112%
|
82
−112%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+8.3%
|
250−260
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+103%
|
34
−103%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−7.4%
|
145
+7.4%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+22%
|
90−95
−22%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+8.7%
|
92
−8.7%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+20.5%
|
110−120
−20.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+29%
|
90−95
−29%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+21%
|
81
−21%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+25.6%
|
86
−25.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+36.5%
|
52
−36.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+36.3%
|
90−95
−36.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+6.5%
|
92
−6.5%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+19%
|
160−170
−19%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+22.6%
|
90−95
−22.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+130%
|
30
−130%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+22.7%
|
110
−22.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+22%
|
90−95
−22%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+16.3%
|
86
−16.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+29%
|
90−95
−29%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+36.3%
|
90−95
−36.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
−1.9%
|
54
+1.9%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+19%
|
160−170
−19%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+20.5%
|
110−120
−20.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+106%
|
35
−106%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+29.3%
|
160−170
−29.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+64.9%
|
37
−64.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+139%
|
18
−139%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+14.4%
|
200−210
−14.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+25.8%
|
65−70
−25.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+94.1%
|
17
−94.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+40.4%
|
50−55
−40.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+28.1%
|
57
−28.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+38.3%
|
60−65
−38.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+43.2%
|
35−40
−43.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+39.3%
|
55−60
−39.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+371%
|
7
−371%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+82.4%
|
34
−82.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+145%
|
11
−145%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+28.6%
|
28
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+35.8%
|
130−140
−35.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+33.3%
|
35−40
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+43.5%
|
21−24
−43.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+275%
|
4
−275%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+41.8%
|
67
−41.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+65.2%
|
23
−65.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+34.1%
|
40−45
−34.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+44%
|
24−27
−44%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+48%
|
24−27
−48%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is 48% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5000 is 29% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P5000 is 141% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 371% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6500 XT is 61% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 performs better in 56 tests (88%)
- RX 6500 XT performs better in 7 tests (11%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.40 | 22.95 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 107 Watt |
Quadro P5000 has a 32.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 7% lower power consumption.
RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6500 XT in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6500 XT 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.
