Radeon RX 580 Mobile vs Quadro M5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000 with Radeon RX 580 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
M5000 outperforms RX 580 Mobile by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 229 | 281 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.01 | 24.14 |
| Power efficiency | 11.21 | 13.59 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,856.99 | $301.69 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 580 Mobile has 702% better value for money than Quadro M5000.
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 | 2048 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 861 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1077 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 132.9 | 155.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.252 TFLOPS | 4.963 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 144 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 256 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 211 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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 | 90−95
+20%
| 75
−20%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+12.9%
| 31
−12.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 31.74 | 4.02 |
| 4K | 81.63 | 9.73 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M5000 and RX 580 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro M5000 is 20% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M5000 is 13% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.29 | 19.64 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 18 April 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro M5000 has a 23.7% higher aggregate performance score.
RX 580 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 580 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation card while Radeon RX 580 Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
