Quadro 5010M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with Quadro 5010M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms 5010M by a minimal 3% 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 | 706 | 717 |
| Place by popularity | 46 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.10 | 3.08 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | GF110 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (14 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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 57.60 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.843 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 48 |
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 | IGP | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 83.2 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.0 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 35−40
−8.6%
| 38
+8.6%
|
| Full HD | 18
−228%
| 59
+228%
|
| 4K | 10
+11.1%
| 9−10
−11.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+30%
|
20−22
−30%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 42
−73.8%
|
70−75
+73.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+5.6%
|
35−40
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 19
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+50%
|
20−22
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+15%
|
20−22
−15%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 15
−267%
|
55−60
+267%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+3.2%
|
30−35
−3.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.7%
|
40−45
−4.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| God of War | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| God of War | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Quadro 5010M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 5010M is 9% faster in 900p
- Quadro 5010M is 228% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 11% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 100% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 5010M is 267% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) performs better in 22 tests (37%)
- Quadro 5010M performs better in 13 tests (22%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (42%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.15 | 4.04 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 22 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 100 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 2.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Quadro 5010M.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 5010M 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.
