RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Kaveri) with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms R5 (Kaveri) by a whopping 3695% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1046 | 72 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 81.28 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 45.35 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri | AD107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2014 (10 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 256 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 626 MHz | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
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 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−3471%
|
500−550
+3471%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−3650%
|
1200−1250
+3650%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−3471%
|
500−550
+3471%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−3536%
|
400−450
+3536%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−3650%
|
1200−1250
+3650%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−3471%
|
500−550
+3471%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−3536%
|
400−450
+3536%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−3650%
|
1200−1250
+3650%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−3614%
|
260−270
+3614%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−3500%
|
180−190
+3500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.21 | 45.92 |
| Recency | 4 June 2014 | 12 February 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 3695% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Kaveri) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Kaveri) is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation 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.
