Quadro K5000 vs Radeon RX 560

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 560 with Quadro K5000, including specs and performance data.

RX 560
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.45

K5000 outperforms RX 560 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking462434
Place by popularity79not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.480.61
Power efficiency9.006.06
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePolaris 21GK104
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date18 April 2017 (7 years ago)17 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 $2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 560 has 143% better value for money than Quadro K5000.

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 cores10241536
Core clock speed1175 MHz706 MHz
Boost clock speed1275 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,000 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate81.6090.37
Floating-point processing power2.611 TFLOPS2.169 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs64128

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Length170 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1350 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s172.8 GB/s

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-3.0

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.

RX 560 9.45
Quadro K5000 10.35
+9.5%

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.

RX 560 3645
Quadro K5000 3993
+9.5%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

RX 560 17125
+49.8%
Quadro K5000 11433

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

RX 560 18272
+55.6%
Quadro K5000 11746

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 HD35
+0%
35−40
+0%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.45 10.35
Recency 18 April 2017 17 August 2012
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 122 Watt

RX 560 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 62.7% lower power consumption.

Quadro K5000, on the other hand, has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 560 and Quadro K5000.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop card while Quadro K5000 is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX 560
Radeon RX 560
NVIDIA Quadro K5000
Quadro K5000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 2769 votes

Rate Radeon RX 560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 92 votes

Rate Quadro K5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.