AMD Radeon R9 280 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 280 and NVIDIA Quadro 5000M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- 6.5x more texture fill rate: 104.5 GTexel / s vs 16.2 GTexel / s
- 5.6x more pipelines: 1792 vs 320
- 6.5x better floating-point performance: 3,344 gflops vs 518.4 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 71% higher maximum memory size: 3 GB vs 1792 MB
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5552 vs 2060
- Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 665 vs 426
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 4 March 2014 vs 27 July 2010 |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 GTexel / s vs 16.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 vs 320 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,344 gflops vs 518.4 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 3 GB vs 1792 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5552 vs 2060 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 665 vs 426 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 5000M
- 2x lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 200 Watt
- Around 92% higher memory clock speed: 2400 MHz vs 1250 MHz
- Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 5249 vs 3698
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7205 vs 3337
- Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 5249 vs 3698
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7205 vs 3337
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 200 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 2400 MHz vs 1250 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 5249 vs 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7205 vs 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 5249 vs 3698 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7205 vs 3337 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 280
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 5000M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R9 280 | NVIDIA Quadro 5000M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5552 | 2060 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 665 | 426 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.829 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.685 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.495 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 79.909 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 365.384 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7957 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 5249 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 | 7205 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7957 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 5249 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 | 7205 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2009 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 23008 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R9 280 | NVIDIA Quadro 5000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |
| Code name | Tahiti | GF100 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 4 March 2014 | 27 July 2010 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | |
| Place in performance rating | 422 | 424 |
| Type | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 933 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 3,344 gflops | 518.4 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 1792 | 320 |
| Stream Processors | 1792 | |
| Texture fill rate | 104.5 GTexel / s | 16.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 200 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4,313 million | 3,100 million |
| Core clock speed | 405 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 275 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | |
| Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1792 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 76.8 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R9 280 with others
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
ATIRadeon X800 SE
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
ATIRadeon X1650 GTO
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIAQuadro 5000M
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIATesla K20m
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX TITAN
AMDRadeon R9 280 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
