Quadro K5000 vs Radeon R9 285
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 285 with Quadro K5000, including specs and performance data.
R9 285 outperforms K5000 by an impressive 67% 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 | 368 | 500 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.68 | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 6.47 | 6.03 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 17 August 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 285 has 2744% 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 | 1792 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 | 90.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.29 TFLOPS | 2.169 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-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 | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |
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 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | + |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.97 | 9.55 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 17 August 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 122 Watt |
R9 285 has a 67% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
Quadro K5000, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 56% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 285 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.
