ATI FirePro M5800 vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with FirePro M5800, including specs and performance data.
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms M5800 by a whopping 120% 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 | 837 | 1074 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.79 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | Madison |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (12 years ago) | 1 March 2010 (16 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 13.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 40 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/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 HD | 18
−16.7%
| 21
+16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+35.3%
|
30−35
−35.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+35.3%
|
30−35
−35.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 26
+52.9%
|
16−18
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+35.3%
|
30−35
−35.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and ATI M5800 compete in popular games:
- ATI M5800 is 17% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 900% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI M5800 is 17% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) performs better in 42 tests (98%)
- ATI M5800 performs better in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.82 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 1 March 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 120% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
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 graphics card while FirePro M5800 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
