NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K510M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and NVIDIA Quadro K510M 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 Quadro RTX 8000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 19% higher core clock speed: 1005 MHz vs 846 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 5.8x more memory clock speed: 14000 MHz vs 2400 MHz
- 30.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 19370 vs 641
- Around 97% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 869 vs 441
- 19.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 21578 vs 1087
- Around 82% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3652 vs 2012
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3290 vs 3071
- 19.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 21578 vs 1087
- Around 82% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3652 vs 2012
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3290 vs 3071
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 August 2018 vs 23 July 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz vs 846 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz vs 2400 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 vs 641 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 vs 441 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 vs 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3652 vs 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3290 vs 3071 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 vs 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3652 vs 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3290 vs 3071 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K510M
- 8.3x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 250 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K510M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 8000 | NVIDIA Quadro K510M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 | 641 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 | 441 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 136722 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 401.574 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 43.914 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2101.927 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 | 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3652 | 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3290 | 3071 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 | 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3652 | 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3290 | 3071 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | NVIDIA Quadro K510M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler 2.0 |
| Code name | TU102 | GK208 |
| Launch date | 13 August 2018 | 23 July 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | |
| Place in performance rating | 103 | 830 |
| Type | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | 846 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Transistor count | 18,600 million | 1270 Million |
| Floating-point performance | 324.9 gflops | |
| Pipelines | 192 | |
| Texture fill rate | 13.54 GTexel / s | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 19.2 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3060 Ti
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIARTX A4000
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 6700M
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
IntelArc A580
NVIDIAQuadro RTX 8000 vs
NVIDIARTX A3000 Mobile 12GB
