NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5010M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 and NVIDIA Quadro 5010M 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, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- 2.2x more core clock speed: 980 MHz vs 450 MHz
- 4.7x more texture fill rate: 102.5 billion / sec vs 21.6 GTexel / s
- 3.5x more pipelines: 1344 vs 384
- 3.6x better floating-point performance: 2,459.5 gflops vs 691.2 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5331 vs 1772
- Around 68% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 529 vs 315
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 10 May 2012 vs 22 February 2011 |
Core clock speed | 980 MHz vs 450 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion / sec vs 21.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1344 vs 384 |
Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 gflops vs 691.2 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5331 vs 1772 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 529 vs 315 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 5010M
- Around 70% lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 170 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 433.3x more memory clock speed: 2600 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
- Around 6% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 16261 vs 15400
Specifications (specs) | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 170 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
Memory clock speed | 2600 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 16261 vs 15400 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 5010M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 | NVIDIA Quadro 5010M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5331 | 1772 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 529 | 315 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 15400 | 16261 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.613 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 971.208 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.281 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 40.404 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 86.208 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7038 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3686 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7038 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3686 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1812 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 | NVIDIA Quadro 5010M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |
Code name | GK104 | GF110 |
Launch date | 10 May 2012 | 22 February 2011 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | |
Place in performance rating | 565 | 567 |
Price now | $474.99 | $235.95 |
Type | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Value for money (0-100) | 13.20 | 10.17 |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 450 MHz |
CUDA cores | 1344 | |
Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 gflops | 691.2 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | |
Pipelines | 1344 | 384 |
Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion / sec | 21.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 170 Watt | 100 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,540 million | 3,000 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
G-SYNC support | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | |
SLI options | 3-way | |
Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pin | |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB / s | 83.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 2600 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 ECC |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA | ||
ECC (Error Correcting Code) |