Quadro RTX 5000 vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with Quadro RTX 5000, including specs and performance data.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
2.75

RTX 5000 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 1405% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking79897
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data14.31
Power efficiencyno data12.54
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreTU104
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores3843072
Core clock speed720 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1815 MHz
Number of transistorsno data13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data230 Watt
Texture fill rateno data348.5
Floating-point processing powerno data11.15 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data16 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data448.0 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 Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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 HD14
−1400%
210−220
+1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data10.95

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1344%
130−140
+1344%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1329%
100−105
+1329%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−1329%
100−105
+1329%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1400%
210−220
+1400%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1400%
120−130
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1329%
300−310
+1329%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1400%
90−95
+1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1400%
180−190
+1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1347%
550−600
+1347%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1344%
130−140
+1344%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1329%
100−105
+1329%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−1329%
100−105
+1329%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1400%
210−220
+1400%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1400%
120−130
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1329%
300−310
+1329%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1400%
90−95
+1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1400%
180−190
+1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−1400%
210−220
+1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1347%
550−600
+1347%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1344%
130−140
+1344%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1329%
100−105
+1329%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1400%
210−220
+1400%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1400%
120−130
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1329%
300−310
+1329%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1400%
180−190
+1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−1400%
210−220
+1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1347%
550−600
+1347%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1400%
90−95
+1400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1400%
45−50
+1400%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1400%
120−130
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−1329%
100−105
+1329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−1400%
240−250
+1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1400%
90−95
+1400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1400%
60−65
+1400%

This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and RTX 5000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 5000 is 1400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.75 41.38
Recency 14 January 2014 13 August 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm

RTX 5000 has a 1404.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000
Quadro RTX 5000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 21 vote

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 204 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.