NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q vs AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q and AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP 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, 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 Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 46% higher boost clock speed: 1350 MHz vs 925 MHz
- 4378.4x more texture fill rate: 259.2 GTexel/s vs 59.2 GTexel / s
- 3x more pipelines: 3072 vs 1024
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 88% lower typical power consumption: 80 Watt vs 150 Watt
- 8x more maximum memory size: 16 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 18% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 83425 vs 70535
- 3.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 19377 vs 6316
- 3.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 19377 vs 6316
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 13 March 2015 |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz vs 925 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 259.2 GTexel/s vs 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 3072 vs 1024 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt vs 150 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 83425 vs 70535 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 19377 vs 6316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 19377 vs 6316 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP
- Around 50% higher core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 600 MHz
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8390 vs 3717
- 8.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 27566 vs 3357
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8390 vs 3717
- 8.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 27566 vs 3357
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8390 vs 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 27566 vs 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8390 vs 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 27566 vs 3357 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 12998 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 537 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 83425 | 70535 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 19377 | 6316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 | 8390 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 27566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 19377 | 6316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 | 8390 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 27566 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 7879 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q | AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | TU104 | Pitcairn |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 13 March 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 168 | 170 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 259.2 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 16.59 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 8.294 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 3072 | 1024 |
| Pixel fill rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 259.2 GTexel/s | 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Transistor count | 13600 million | 2,800 million |
| Floating-point performance | 1,894 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Width | IGP | |
API support |
||
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 153.6 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Max-Q with others
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 5000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 270 1024SP
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 5000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 4000 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 5000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 6600M
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 5000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 4050 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 5000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon 760M
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 5000 Max-Q vs
IntelArc A530M
