Quadro P5000 vs Radeon RX Vega 64

Place in performance ranking	119	160
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	55.61	9.97
Architecture	Vega (2017−2021)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Vega	GP104
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	14 August 2017 (6 years old)	1 October 2016 (7 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$2,499
Current price	$125 (0.3x MSRP)	$1270 (0.5x MSRP)

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 64 has 458% better value for money than Quadro P5000.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	4096	2048
Core clock speed	1630 MHz	1607 MHz
Boost clock speed	1546 MHz	1733 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	395.8	277.3
Floating-point performance	13,353 gflops	8,873 gflops

Size and 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 3.0 x16
Length	279 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	1x 8-pin

Memory

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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	945 MHz	9016 MHz
Memory bandwidth	483.8 GB/s	192 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Video outputs and ports

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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	no data
Display Port	no data	1.4

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	no data	+
3D Stereo	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API support

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.125	1.2.131
CUDA	no data	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX Vega 64 37.16
+16.2%

Quadro P5000 31.97

Radeon RX Vega 64 outperforms Quadro P5000 by 16% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

RX Vega 64 14393
+16.2%

Quadro P5000 12383

Radeon RX Vega 64 outperforms Quadro P5000 by 16% in Passmark.

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	117 +23.2%	95 −23.2%
1440p	76 +16.9%	65−70 −16.9%
4K	50 +22%	41 −22%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

65−70
+20.4%

50−55

−20.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	81 +35%	60−65 −35%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	83 +48.2%	55−60 −48.2%
Battlefield 5	161 +64.3%	95−100 −64.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	147 +70.9%	85−90 −70.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +20.4%	50−55 −20.4%
Far Cry 5	110 +32.5%	80−85 −32.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	105 +29.6%	80−85 −29.6%
Forza Horizon 4	167 +63.7%	100−110 −63.7%
Hitman 3	148 +48%	100−105 −48%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80 +15.9%	65−70 −15.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	100 +92.3%	50−55 −92.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	114 +54.1%	70−75 −54.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100 +63.9%	60−65 −63.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	68 +13.3%	60−65 −13.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	69 +23.2%	55−60 −23.2%
Battlefield 5	146 +49%	95−100 −49%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	114 +32.6%	85−90 −32.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +20.4%	50−55 −20.4%
Far Cry 5	104 +25.3%	80−85 −25.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	101 +24.7%	80−85 −24.7%
Forza Horizon 4	158 +54.9%	100−110 −54.9%
Hitman 3	130 +30%	100−105 −30%
Horizon Zero Dawn	62 −11.3%	65−70 +11.3%
Metro Exodus	73 +32.7%	55−60 −32.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	57 +9.6%	50−55 −9.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	97 +31.1%	70−75 −31.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	132 +34.7%	98 −34.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	87 +42.6%	60−65 −42.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	51 −17.6%	60−65 +17.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60 +7.1%	55−60 −7.1%
Battlefield 5	139 +41.8%	95−100 −41.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +20.4%	50−55 −20.4%
Far Cry 5	98 +18.1%	80−85 −18.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	91 +12.3%	80−85 −12.3%
Forza Horizon 4	128 +25.5%	100−110 −25.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	77 +45.3%	53 −45.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	54 −13%	60−65 +13%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	78 +52.9%	50−55 −52.9%
Hitman 3	85 +51.8%	55−60 −51.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	44 +2.3%	40−45 −2.3%
Metro Exodus	46 +35.3%	30−35 −35.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	37 +48%	24−27 −48%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	62 +37.8%	45−50 −37.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +17.1%	35−40 −17.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +38.2%	30−35 −38.2%
Battlefield 5	75−80 +12.9%	70−75 −12.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +26.1%	21−24 −26.1%
Far Cry 5	81 +42.1%	55−60 −42.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	79 +29.5%	60−65 −29.5%
Forza Horizon 4	98 +46.3%	65−70 −46.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +23.8%	40−45 −23.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	38 +40.7%	27−30 −40.7%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	44 +63%	27−30 −63%
Hitman 3	47 +51.6%	30−35 −51.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	13 −76.9%	21−24 +76.9%
Metro Exodus	46 +119%	21−24 −119%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +41.2%	16−18 −41.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	32 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	48 +33.3%	36 −33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	29 +38.1%	21−24 −38.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	28 +47.4%	18−20 −47.4%
Battlefield 5	59 +51.3%	35−40 −51.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	44 +51.7%	27−30 −51.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	45 +40.6%	30−35 −40.6%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +46.7%	45−50 −46.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%

This is how RX Vega 64 and Quadro P5000 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

RX Vega 64 is 23.2% faster than Quadro P5000

1440p resolution:

RX Vega 64 is 16.9% faster than Quadro P5000

4K resolution:

RX Vega 64 is 22% faster than Quadro P5000

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 119% faster than the Quadro P5000.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 76.9% faster than the RX Vega 64.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 64 is ahead in 64 tests (94%)
Quadro P5000 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	37.16	31.97
Recency	14 August 2017	1 October 2016
Cost	$499	$2499
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	100 Watt