Quadro K5000 vs Radeon R9 280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280X with Quadro K5000, including specs and performance data.
R9 280X outperforms K5000 by a considerable 47% 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 | 395 | 485 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.65 | 0.26 |
| Power efficiency | 4.25 | 5.94 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 17 August 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 280X has 1688% better value for money than Quadro K5000.
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 | 2048 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 90.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 2.169 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 512 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 172.8 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 65
+62.5%
| 40−45
−62.5%
|
| 4K | 31
+47.6%
| 21−24
−47.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.60
+1258%
| 62.48
−1258%
|
| 4K | 9.65
+1134%
| 119.00
−1134%
|
- R9 280X has 1258% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 280X has 1134% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+58%
|
50−55
−58%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+58%
|
50−55
−58%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+58%
|
100−105
−58%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+48.8%
|
80−85
−48.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+58%
|
50−55
−58%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+47.7%
|
130−140
−47.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+51.7%
|
60−65
−51.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+50%
|
40−45
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+48.8%
|
80−85
−48.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+52.5%
|
40−45
−52.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+52.2%
|
90−95
−52.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+48.8%
|
80−85
−48.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 48
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+51.4%
|
70−75
−51.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+51.1%
|
90−95
−51.1%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+53.7%
|
95−100
−53.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+62.5%
|
24−27
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+56%
|
50−55
−56%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+51.1%
|
45−50
−51.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
This is how R9 280X and Quadro K5000 compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 63% faster in 1080p
- R9 280X is 48% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.20 | 9.01 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 17 August 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 122 Watt |
R9 280X has a 46.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Quadro K5000, on the other hand, has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 104.9% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K5000 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.
