ATI FirePro M5800 vs AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
3.05
+123%

Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms FirePro M5800 by 123% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking722965
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreMadison
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years old)1 March 2010 (14 years old)
Current priceno data$60

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 cores512400
Core clock speed720 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistorsno data627 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data26 Watt
Texture fill rateno data13.00
Floating-point performanceno data520.0 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and FirePro M5800 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 sizeno datamedium sized
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16

Memory

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 dataDDR3, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data51.2 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkanno dataN/A

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 HD18
−16.7%
21
+16.7%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and ATI M5800 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • ATI M5800 is 16.7% faster than R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 700% faster than the ATI M5800.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 30 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 3.05 1.37
Recency 14 January 2014 1 March 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while FirePro M5800 is a mobile workstation one.


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

User ratings

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


AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
ATI FirePro M5800
FirePro M5800

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.2 14 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 9 votes

Rate ATI FirePro M5800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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