Quadro M5000M vs Radeon R9 285

Place in the ranking	321	310
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.21	no data
Power efficiency	6.29	12.51
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Tonga	GM204
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	2 September 2014 (10 years ago)	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores	1792	1,536
Core clock speed	918 MHz	975 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1051 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	102.8	93.60
Floating-point processing power	3.29 TFLOPS	2.995 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	112	96

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	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	221 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None

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	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1375 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	176.0 GB/s	160 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	-	+
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.170	+
CUDA	-	5.2

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 285 16.21

M5000M 16.97
+4.7%

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.

R9 285 6680

M5000M 6995
+4.7%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 285 8570

M5000M 9228
+7.7%

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

80−85

−7.5%

86
+7.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.11

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
World of Tanks	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
World of Tanks	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Fortnite	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how R9 285 and M5000M compete in popular games:

M5000M is 8% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	16.21	16.97
Recency	2 September 2014	18 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	100 Watt

M5000M has a 4.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 90% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 285 and Quadro M5000M.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop card while Quadro M5000M 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.