Quadro M5000 vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile with Quadro M5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 Mobile outperforms M5000 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 146 | 242 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.25 |
| Power efficiency | 22.40 | 11.16 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,856.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3072 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | 861 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 296.6 | 132.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.492 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 192 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2" (5.1 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR6 | 256 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | Up to 211 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | no data | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 5.2 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 132
+55.3%
| 85−90
−55.3%
|
| 1440p | 84
+52.7%
| 55−60
−52.7%
|
| 4K | 54
+54.3%
| 35−40
−54.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 33.61 |
| 1440p | no data | 51.95 |
| 4K | no data | 81.63 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+50.8%
|
65−70
−50.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+47.7%
|
130−140
−47.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+50.8%
|
65−70
−50.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 165
+50%
|
110−120
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+47.7%
|
130−140
−47.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 128
+50.6%
|
85−90
−50.6%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+50%
|
100−105
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+52.9%
|
85−90
−52.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+50%
|
70−75
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+48.9%
|
90−95
−48.9%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+57.7%
|
130−140
−57.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 95−100
+50.8%
|
65−70
−50.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 162
+47.3%
|
110−120
−47.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+47.7%
|
130−140
−47.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+53.9%
|
180−190
−53.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+50.8%
|
65−70
−50.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+53.8%
|
80−85
−53.8%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+50%
|
100−105
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+52.9%
|
85−90
−52.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+50%
|
70−75
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+53.3%
|
75−80
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 99
+52.3%
|
65−70
−52.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+48.9%
|
90−95
−48.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
+50.8%
|
120−130
−50.8%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+57.7%
|
130−140
−57.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 152
+52%
|
100−105
−52%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+53.3%
|
60−65
−53.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+53.3%
|
75−80
−53.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+52.9%
|
85−90
−52.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+48.9%
|
90−95
−48.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Valorant | 181
+50.8%
|
120−130
−50.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+50%
|
100−105
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+50.9%
|
55−60
−50.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+54%
|
150−160
−54%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+59.1%
|
110−120
−59.1%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+50%
|
160−170
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+55%
|
80−85
−55%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+56.9%
|
65−70
−56.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+55%
|
60−65
−55%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+56.4%
|
55−60
−56.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+53.3%
|
45−50
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+57.8%
|
45−50
−57.8%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+56.2%
|
130−140
−56.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+62.2%
|
45−50
−62.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−105
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+60%
|
35−40
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
This is how RTX 5000 Mobile and Quadro M5000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 55% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 53% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 54% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.06 | 21.10 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 29 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 150 Watt |
RTX 5000 Mobile has a 47.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 36.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Quadro M5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
