Radeon RX 580 Mobile vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with Radeon RX 580 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
P5000 outperforms RX 580 Mobile by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 169 | 296 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.82 | 22.90 |
| Power efficiency | 12.58 | 13.43 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 18 April 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $301.69 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 580 Mobile has 236% 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 | 2048 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 1077 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 155.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 4.963 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 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-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 256.0 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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
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 and SDK 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 | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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 | 98
+25.6%
| 78
−25.6%
|
| 4K | 40
+29%
| 31
−29%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 25.50
−559%
| 3.87
+559%
|
| 4K | 62.48
−542%
| 9.73
+542%
|
- RX 580 Mobile has 559% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 580 Mobile has 542% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35
−91.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+76.9%
|
35−40
−76.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+51.6%
|
60−65
−51.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35
−91.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+76.9%
|
35−40
−76.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+86.6%
|
80−85
−86.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+63.5%
|
50−55
−63.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+54.7%
|
50−55
−54.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+48.9%
|
45−50
−48.9%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+64.6%
|
75−80
−64.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+51.6%
|
60−65
−51.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35
−91.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+76.9%
|
35−40
−76.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+62.1%
|
66
−62.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+36.9%
|
65−70
−36.9%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+124%
|
68
−124%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+86.6%
|
80−85
−86.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+63.5%
|
50−55
−63.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+72.6%
|
62
−72.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+54.7%
|
50−55
−54.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
−7%
|
198
+7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+48.9%
|
45−50
−48.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+64.7%
|
68
−64.7%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+64.6%
|
75−80
−64.6%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+21.5%
|
220−230
−21.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+51.6%
|
60−65
−51.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+91.2%
|
30−35
−91.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+76.9%
|
35−40
−76.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+55.1%
|
69
−55.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+36.9%
|
65−70
−36.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+86.6%
|
80−85
−86.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+63.5%
|
50−55
−63.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+219%
|
58
−219%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+64.6%
|
75−80
−64.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+90.3%
|
30−35
−90.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+90.3%
|
30−35
−90.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+38.5%
|
110−120
−38.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+82.4%
|
16−18
−82.4%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
+58.6%
|
130−140
−58.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+60%
|
40−45
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+100%
|
50−55
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+82%
|
50−55
−82%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+74.2%
|
30−35
−74.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+65.9%
|
40−45
−65.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+96.3%
|
27−30
−96.3%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+92%
|
50−55
−92%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+77.6%
|
55−60
−77.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+94.7%
|
18−20
−94.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+91.3%
|
21−24
−91.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+82.8%
|
27−30
−82.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+113%
|
21−24
−113%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and RX 580 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is 26% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5000 is 29% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 219% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 580 Mobile is 7% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is ahead in 62 tests (97%)
- RX 580 Mobile is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.54 | 19.30 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 18 April 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
Quadro P5000 has a 68.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 580 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 580 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5000 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
