Radeon PRO W7700 vs Quadro 5010M

Place in the ranking	671	36
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	69.53
Power efficiency	3.03	21.44
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GF110	Navi 32
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$999

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	384	3072
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1900 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2600 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	21.60	499.2
Floating-point processing power	0.6912 TFLOPS	31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	96
TMUs	48	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	650 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	83.2 GB/s	576.0 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

4x DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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. 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 5010M 4.40

PRO W7700 59.17
+1245%

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 5010M 1691

PRO W7700 22747
+1245%

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	38 −1216%	500−550 +1216%
Full HD	59 −1171%	750−800 +1171%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

1.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1233%	160−170 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Elden Ring	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −1208%	170−180 +1208%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1233%	160−170 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −1216%	250−260 +1216%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −1186%	180−190 +1186%
Valorant	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −1208%	170−180 +1208%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1233%	160−170 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Dota 2	14−16 −1186%	180−190 +1186%
Elden Ring	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −1218%	290−300 +1218%
Fortnite	24−27 −1054%	300−310 +1054%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −1216%	250−260 +1216%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −1186%	180−190 +1186%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −1216%	500−550 +1216%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −1186%	180−190 +1186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −1233%	200−210 +1233%
Valorant	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
World of Tanks	70−75 −1201%	950−1000 +1201%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −1208%	170−180 +1208%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −1233%	160−170 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Dota 2	14−16 −1186%	180−190 +1186%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −1218%	290−300 +1218%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −1216%	250−260 +1216%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −1216%	500−550 +1216%
Valorant	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Elden Ring	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
Grand Theft Auto V	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 −1233%	400−450 +1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
World of Tanks	30−35 −1190%	400−450 +1190%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1100%	24−27 +1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
Valorant	12−14 −1208%	170−180 +1208%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −1213%	210−220 +1213%
Elden Ring	2−3 −1100%	24−27 +1100%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −1213%	210−220 +1213%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −1233%	160−170 +1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −1213%	210−220 +1213%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Dota 2	16−18 −1213%	210−220 +1213%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
Fortnite	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Valorant	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%

This is how Quadro 5010M and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

PRO W7700 is 1216% faster in 900p
PRO W7700 is 1171% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.40	59.17
Recency	22 February 2011	13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	190 Watt

Quadro 5010M has 90% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 1244.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5010M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 5010M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

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