Quadro P5000 vs Radeon RX Vega 64

Place in the ranking	129	167
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	21.95	6.64
Power efficiency	8.65	12.54
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GP104
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	7 August 2017 (7 years ago)	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 64 has 231% better value for money than Quadro P5000.

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	4096	2048
Core clock speed	1247 MHz	1607 MHz
Boost clock speed	1546 MHz	1733 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	395.8	277.3
Floating-point processing power	12.66 TFLOPS	8.873 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	256	160

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 3.0 x16
Length	279 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	1x 8-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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	945 MHz	1127 MHz
Memory bandwidth	483.8 GB/s	192 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-
Display Port	no data	1.4

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
3D Stereo	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.125	1.2.131
CUDA	-	6.1

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.

RX Vega 64 37.05
+13%

Quadro P5000 32.79

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.

RX Vega 64 14245
+13%

Quadro P5000 12608

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	118 +20.4%	98 −20.4%
1440p	80 +14.3%	70−75 −14.3%
4K	52 +30%	40 −30%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.23 +503%	25.50 −503%
1440p	6.24 +472%	35.70 −472%
4K	9.60 +551%	62.48 −551%

RX Vega 64 has 503% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX Vega 64 has 472% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX Vega 64 has 551% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +16.9%	65−70 −16.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +14.5%	65−70 −14.5%
Elden Ring	120−130 +15.2%	110−120 −15.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	82 −14.6%	90−95 +14.6%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +16.9%	65−70 −16.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	34 −103%	65−70 +103%
Forza Horizon 4	202 +32%	150−160 −32%
Metro Exodus	105 +28%	80−85 −28%
Red Dead Redemption 2	116 +73.1%	65−70 −73.1%
Valorant	182 +38.9%	130−140 −38.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	174 +85.1%	90−95 −85.1%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +16.9%	65−70 −16.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 −156%	65−70 +156%
Dota 2	50 −114%	100−110 +114%
Elden Ring	120−130 +15.2%	110−120 −15.2%
Far Cry 5	62 −43.5%	85−90 +43.5%
Fortnite	123 −23.6%	150−160 +23.6%
Forza Horizon 4	164 +7.2%	150−160 −7.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	110−120 +9.3%	100−110 −9.3%
Metro Exodus	79 −3.8%	80−85 +3.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +5.9%	180−190 −5.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	57 −17.5%	65−70 +17.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	130−140 +16.1%	110−120 −16.1%
Valorant	92 −42.4%	130−140 +42.4%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0.7%	270−280 −0.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	72 −30.6%	90−95 +30.6%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +16.9%	65−70 −16.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 −188%	65−70 +188%
Dota 2	138 +29%	100−110 −29%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +5.6%	85−90 −5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	143 −7%	150−160 +7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +5.9%	180−190 −5.9%
Valorant	140 +6.9%	130−140 −6.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	65−70 +15.3%	55−60 −15.3%
Elden Ring	70−75 +17.5%	60−65 −17.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +15.3%	55−60 −15.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	37 +19.4%	30−35 −19.4%
World of Tanks	230−240 +11.4%	210−220 −11.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +9.4%	60−65 −9.4%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +20%	30−33 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 −107%	30−35 +107%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +15.5%	100−110 −15.5%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +9.9%	90−95 −9.9%
Metro Exodus	79 +8.2%	70−75 −8.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +18.9%	50−55 −18.9%
Valorant	95 −1.1%	95−100 +1.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +18.8%	30−35 −18.8%
Dota 2	70−75 +16.4%	60−65 −16.4%
Elden Ring	35−40 +20.7%	27−30 −20.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	70−75 +18%	60−65 −18%
Metro Exodus	46 +70.4%	27−30 −70.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +15.5%	100−110 −15.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +14.3%	21−24 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +16.4%	60−65 −16.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	47 +27%	35−40 −27%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +18.8%	30−35 −18.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Dota 2	96 +57.4%	60−65 −57.4%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +17.4%	45−50 −17.4%
Fortnite	50 +13.6%	40−45 −13.6%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +13.5%	50−55 −13.5%
Valorant	49 +0%	45−50 +0%

This is how RX Vega 64 and Quadro P5000 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 64 is 20% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 64 is 14% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 64 is 30% faster in 4K

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

in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 85% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 188% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 64 is ahead in 46 tests (73%)
Quadro P5000 is ahead in 15 tests (24%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	37.05	32.79
Recency	7 August 2017	1 October 2016
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	100 Watt