Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
NVIDIA Quadro 5010M vs AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 580 | 584 |
| Value for money | 3.25 | 1.39 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 12 | N12E-Q5 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 21 March 2018 (5 years old) | 22 February 2011 (12 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
| Current price | $343 (2.3x MSRP) | $134 |
Value for money
PRO WX 2100 has 134% better value for money than Quadro 5010M.
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 | 512 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,248 gflops | 691.2 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Quadro 5010M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 ECC |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 83.2 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 DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | 2.0 |
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.
Radeon PRO WX 2100 outperforms Quadro 5010M by 2% in our combined benchmark results.
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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%
Radeon PRO WX 2100 outperforms Quadro 5010M by 2% 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:
| 900p | no data | 38 |
| Full HD | no data | 59 |
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 100% faster than the Quadro 5010M.
All in all, in popular games:
- PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 16 tests (27%)
- there's a draw in 43 tests (73%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 4.62 | 4.55 |
| Recency | 21 March 2018 | 22 February 2011 |
| Memory bus width | 128 | 256 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 384 |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 | 83.2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 100 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Quadro 5010M. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
