Quadro M5000 vs Radeon Pro W5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5500 and Quadro M5000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M5000 outperforms Pro W5500 by a small 5% 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 | 278 | 263 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.90 | 1.32 |
| Power efficiency | 12.92 | 11.35 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 29 June 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $2,856.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro W5500 has 1180% better value for money than Quadro M5000.
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 | 1408 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1187 MHz | 861 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 123.2 | 132.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.942 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 88 | 128 |
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 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2" (5.1 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | Up to 211 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
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 | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.18 | 22.32 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 29 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 150 Watt |
Pro W5500 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.
Quadro M5000, on the other hand, has a 5.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro W5500 and Quadro M5000.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
