Quadro 5000M vs Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000) with Quadro 5000M, including specs and performance data.
5000M outperforms Graphics (Ryzen 7000) by a significant 22% 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 | 731 | 675 |
| Place by popularity | 91 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.78 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2 (2022−2023) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Raphael | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 September 2022 (3 years ago) | 27 July 2010 (15 years ago) |
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 | 128 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 405 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 16.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.5184 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 640 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1792 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 19
−10.5%
| 21−24
+10.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−10.9%
|
60−65
+10.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−17.8%
|
85−90
+17.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 41
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−10.9%
|
60−65
+10.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
−13.5%
|
40−45
+13.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−10.9%
|
60−65
+10.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−22.6%
|
35−40
+22.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−9.1%
|
35−40
+9.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−27.9%
|
55−60
+27.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−25%
|
24−27
+25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Graphics (Ryzen 7000) and Quadro 5000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M is 11% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M performs better in 56 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.04 | 4.92 |
| Recency | 26 September 2022 | 27 July 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 40 nm |
Graphics (Ryzen 7000) has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 5000M, on the other hand, has a 21.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The Quadro 5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 5000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
