NVIDIA Quadro K5000M vs AMD Radeon HD 7450M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K5000M and AMD Radeon HD 7450M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K5000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 month(s) later
- 12x more texture fill rate: 67.31 GTexel / s vs 5.6 GTexel / s
- 8.4x more pipelines: 1344 vs 160
- 7.2x better floating-point performance: 1,615 gflops vs 224.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 67% higher memory clock speed: 3000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- 8.4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2779 vs 330
- 10.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5107 vs 476
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3712 vs 1832
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3712 vs 1832
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 7 August 2012 vs 7 January 2012 |
Texture fill rate | 67.31 GTexel / s vs 5.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1344 vs 160 |
Floating-point performance | 1,615 gflops vs 224.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2779 vs 330 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5107 vs 476 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3712 vs 1832 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3712 vs 1832 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7450M
- Around 16% higher core clock speed: 700 MHz vs 601 MHz
- 14.3x lower typical power consumption: 7 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Around 24% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 441 vs 355
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3493 vs 3353
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3493 vs 3353
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 700 MHz vs 601 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 7 Watt vs 100 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 441 vs 355 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3493 vs 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3493 vs 3353 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K5000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7450M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro K5000M | AMD Radeon HD 7450M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2779 | 330 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 355 | 441 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5107 | 476 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.713 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 685.1 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.189 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 28.929 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 68.712 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4825 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3712 | 1832 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3493 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4825 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3712 | 1832 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3493 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro K5000M | AMD Radeon HD 7450M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 2 |
Code name | GK104 | Seymour |
Launch date | 7 August 2012 | 7 January 2012 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $329.99 | |
Place in performance rating | 805 | 808 |
Price now | $391 | |
Type | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Value for money (0-100) | 8.47 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 601 MHz | 700 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,615 gflops | 224.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 1344 | 160 |
Texture fill rate | 67.31 GTexel / s | 5.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 7 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,540 million | 370 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | 14.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |