AMD Radeon R9 M470X vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M470X and NVIDIA Quadro M5000M 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, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 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 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M470X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 8 month(s) later
- Around 3% higher core clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 975 MHz
- Around 5% higher boost clock speed: 1100 MHz vs 1051 MHz
- Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 5012 MHz
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 3685
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 3685
- 2.5x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 57109 vs 22846
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 3339
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 3339
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 15 May 2016 vs 18 August 2015 |
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 975 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz vs 1051 MHz |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz vs 5012 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3685 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 57109 vs 22846 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 3339 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 3339 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
- Around 52% higher texture fill rate: 93.6 GTexel / s vs 61.6 GTexel / s
- Around 71% higher pipelines: 1,536 vs 896
- Around 52% better floating-point performance: 2,995 gflops vs 1,971 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
- 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7020 vs 3244
- Around 12% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 478 vs 426
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 93.6 GTexel / s vs 61.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1,536 vs 896 |
Floating-point performance | 2,995 gflops vs 1,971 gflops |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 4 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7020 vs 3244 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 478 vs 426 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M470X
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M5000M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R9 M470X | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3244 | 7020 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 426 | 478 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3685 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 57109 | 22846 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 3339 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 3339 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 95.613 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1341.18 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.869 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 83.683 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 366.321 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9399 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9399 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R9 M470X | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
Code name | Strato | GM204 |
Launch date | 15 May 2016 | 18 August 2015 |
Place in performance rating | 462 | 463 |
Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1051 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 975 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops | 2,995 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 896 | 1,536 |
Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s | 93.6 GTexel / s |
Transistor count | 2,080 million | 5,200 million |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | large |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 5.0 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 5012 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
DirectCompute 5.0 | ||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |