Quadro RTX 8000 vs Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Kaveri) with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms R5 (Kaveri) by a whopping 4107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1062 | 60 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.34 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.53 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri | TU102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2014 (10 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
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 | 256 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 626 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 672.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 data | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3789%
|
350−400
+3789%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3991%
|
1350−1400
+3991%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−3974%
|
1100−1150
+3974%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−3963%
|
650−700
+3963%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3789%
|
350−400
+3789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3991%
|
1350−1400
+3991%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−3963%
|
650−700
+3963%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3789%
|
350−400
+3789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3991%
|
1350−1400
+3991%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−4043%
|
290−300
+4043%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−3991%
|
450−500
+3991%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3900%
|
600−650
+3900%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.05 | 44.17 |
| Recency | 4 June 2014 | 13 August 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
RTX 8000 has a 4106.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Kaveri) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Kaveri) is a notebook card while Quadro RTX 8000 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.
