Quadro M5000 vs Radeon R9 Nano

Place in the ranking	254	233
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.37	3.21
Power efficiency	8.68	11.20
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Fiji	GM204
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	27 August 2015 (9 years ago)	29 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	$2,856.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Nano has 67% 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	4096	2048
Compute units	64	no data
Core clock speed	no data	861 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1038 MHz
Number of transistors	8,900 million	5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	256.0	132.9
Floating-point processing power	8.192 TFLOPS	4.252 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	256	128

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	152 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	2" (5.1 cm)
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	1 x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)	256 Bit
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	+	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	1653 MHz
Memory bandwidth	512 GB/s	Up to 211 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays	no data	4
Multi-display synchronization	no data	Quadro Sync
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
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	DirectX® 12	12
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.1.126
Mantle	+	-
CUDA	-	5.2

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.

R9 Nano 22.07

Quadro M5000 24.40
+10.6%

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.

R9 Nano 8486

Quadro M5000 9380
+10.5%

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	89 −6.7%	95−100 +6.7%
4K	50 −10%	55−60 +10%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.29 +312%	30.07 −312%
4K	12.98 +300%	51.95 −300%

R9 Nano has 312% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 Nano has 300% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Elden Ring	70−75 −5.6%	75−80 +5.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −8.7%	75−80 +8.7%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −6.4%	100−105 +6.4%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −10.2%	65−70 +10.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −10%	55−60 +10%
Valorant	85−90 −6.7%	95−100 +6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −8.7%	75−80 +8.7%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Dota 2	75−80 −10.4%	85−90 +10.4%
Elden Ring	70−75 −5.6%	75−80 +5.6%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −5.6%	75−80 +5.6%
Fortnite	110−120 −5.3%	120−130 +5.3%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −6.4%	100−105 +6.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	75−80 −10.4%	85−90 +10.4%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −10.2%	65−70 +10.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −4.2%	150−160 +4.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −10%	55−60 +10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Valorant	85−90 −6.7%	95−100 +6.7%
World of Tanks	240−250 −6.6%	260−270 +6.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 −8.7%	75−80 +8.7%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Dota 2	75−80 −10.4%	85−90 +10.4%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −5.6%	75−80 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 −6.4%	100−105 +6.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −4.2%	150−160 +4.2%
Valorant	85−90 −6.7%	95−100 +6.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
Elden Ring	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −9.2%	190−200 +9.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
World of Tanks	140−150 −8.1%	160−170 +8.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −3.4%	60−65 +3.4%
Metro Exodus	50−55 −10%	55−60 +10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Valorant	55−60 −3.4%	60−65 +3.4%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Dota 2	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Elden Ring	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%
Fortnite	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

This is how R9 Nano and Quadro M5000 compete in popular games:

Quadro M5000 is 7% faster in 1080p
Quadro M5000 is 10% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	22.07	24.40
Recency	27 August 2015	29 June 2015
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	150 Watt

R9 Nano has an age advantage of 1 month.

Quadro M5000, on the other hand, has a 10.6% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Nano in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop card while Quadro M5000 is a workstation one.

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