Quadro FX 2700M vs Quadro 5000M

Place in the ranking	611	1116
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	3.69	1.01
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF100	G94
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	27 July 2010 (14 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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	320	48
Core clock speed	405 MHz	530 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.20	12.72
Floating-point processing power	0.5184 TFLOPS	0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	40	24

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	large	large
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-HE

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	600 MHz	799 MHz
Memory bandwidth	76.8 GB/s	51.14 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

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

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.

Quadro 5000M 5.34
+462%

FX 2700M 0.95

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.

Quadro 5000M 2059
+463%

FX 2700M 366

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.

Quadro 5000M 7767
+177%

FX 2700M 2799

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10
+200%

3−4

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +467%	6−7 −467%
Hitman 3	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +162%	12−14 −162%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +171%	7−8 −171%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +51.6%	30−35 −51.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +467%	6−7 −467%
Hitman 3	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +162%	12−14 −162%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +171%	7−8 −171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +51.6%	30−35 −51.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +467%	6−7 −467%
Hitman 3	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +162%	12−14 −162%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +171%	7−8 −171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +80%	10−11 −80%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +51.6%	30−35 −51.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+1300%

1−2

−1300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +750%	4−5 −750%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+233%

3−4

−233%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro 5000M surpassed FX 2700M in all 40 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.34	0.95
Recency	27 July 2010	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	65 Watt

Quadro 5000M has a 462.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 250% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2700M, on the other hand, has 53.8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.