NVIDIA Quadro 5000 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a decisive outcome in this comparison. The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, and it wins by a substantial margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 points, while the Quadro 5000 scores 7,289 points. The delta percentage of -68.1% for the Quadro 5000 indicates that the newer card is roughly 3.1 times faster in this compute workload.

The data suggests a clear generational shift. The Quadro 5000, an end-of-life product from 2011, occupies the 40th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 750 (0.9% ahead), Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (1.2% ahead), GTX 560 SE (1.6% ahead), and Iris Pro Graphics P580 (1.7% ahead). These are tight margins, indicating the Quadro 5000 sits in a crowded mid-low performance band.

The RTX A400, by contrast, shows a different profile. It sits at the 35th percentile, but its average benchmark score of 6,078 reflects a wide spread across multiple test types. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce MX230 (0% delta), Quadro P2000 (0.5% ahead), Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (0.6% behind), and Radeon 760M (1% ahead). The RTX A400 is competitive with these modern low-end parts, which is a different performance class entirely compared to the Quadro 5000.

The verdict is straightforward: for any workload that leverages OpenCL compute, the RTX A400 is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements. The Quadro 5000 retains relevance only as a legacy part, and the data does not support selecting it for new deployments. The RTX A400 is an active product with modern API support, while the Quadro 5000 is end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different eras of NVIDIA's design philosophy. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip, built on the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This process shrink is dramatic: the Quadro 5000 packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The RTX A400 packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The density improvement is roughly 7.4 times, which explains how the newer chip fits nearly three times as many transistors into a smaller physical space.

The memory subsystems are also from different generations. The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. Despite having a narrower bus, the newer memory type allows the RTX A400 to offer more capacity, though slightly less raw bandwidth.

Compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX A400 has more than double the shading units, but fewer TMUs and ROPs. More importantly, the RTX A400 adds 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Fermi architecture. The FP32 throughput tells the story: the Quadro 5000 delivers 722.3 GFLOPS, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS. The RTX A400 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.706 TFLOPS), while the Quadro 5000 has no listed FP16 capability.

API support diverges sharply. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer card also supports modern features like ray tracing and tensor operations through its dedicated cores.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The RTX A400, by a significant margin. It scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. The delta percentage of -68.1% for the Quadro 5000 shows it is far behind.

Q: Does the RTX A400 have more memory than the Quadro 5000?

A: Yes. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory. The newer card offers 1.5 GB more capacity.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The Quadro 5000 is listed as end-of-life, while the RTX A400 is listed as active. The Quadro 5000 was released in February 2011, and the RTX A400 was released in April 2024.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the RTX A400. It has 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Quadro 5000, based on the Fermi architecture, has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of power requirements?

A: The RTX A400 has a significantly lower TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The RTX A400 is substantially smaller in both dimensions.

Specification Differences

The database records several key differences between the two cards. The process node differs: 40 nm for the Quadro 5000 versus 8 nm for the RTX A400. The transistor count differs: 3,100 million versus 8,700 million. The die size differs: 529 mm² versus 200 mm². The transistor density differs: 5.9M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

Clock speeds are only recorded for the RTX A400, which has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The Quadro 5000 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks differ: the Quadro 5000 runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the RTX A400 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration differs: 2.5 GB GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Bandwidth is 120.0 GB/s for the Quadro 5000 and 96.00 GB/s for the RTX A400. Shading units differ: 352 versus 768. TMUs differ: 44 versus 24. ROPs differ: 40 versus 16. The RTX A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, while the Quadro 5000 has none.

Pixel rate is 11.29 GPixel/s for the Quadro 5000 versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400. Texture rate is 22.57 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 722.3 GFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS. The RTX A400 also lists FP16 performance at 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro 5000 has none listed.

TDP differs: 152 W versus 50 W. Slot width differs: dual-slot versus single-slot. Power connectors differ: 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU differs: 450 W versus 250 W. Bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ: 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Dimensions differ: the Quadro 5000 is 248 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the RTX A400 is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall. API support differs: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), and Vulkan 1.4 is listed only for the RTX A400. The Quadro 5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the RTX A400 has no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX A400 wins this test with a score of 22,844, versus the Quadro 5000's score of 7,289. The delta percentage is -68.1%, meaning the Quadro 5000 scores 68.1% lower than the RTX A400.

This is a decisive result. The RTX A400's OpenCL score is more than three times higher than the Quadro 5000's. In absolute terms, the difference is 15,555 points. This suggests that for any compute workload using OpenCL, the RTX A400 will complete tasks in roughly one-third of the time, assuming linear scaling.

The broader benchmark data for the RTX A400 shows additional context. It scores 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan, close to its OpenCL score. Its Passmark scores are lower: 5,983 in G3D, 2,557 in GPU Compute, 899 in G2D, and 87, 37, 32, and 27 in DirectX 9, 11, 10, and 12 respectively. These figures show the card's strength in compute-oriented APIs like OpenCL and Vulkan, versus more modest DirectX performance. The Quadro 5000 has only the single OpenCL score recorded, so no DirectX or Vulkan comparison is possible.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the RTX A400 wins the only direct comparison. Its OpenCL compute performance is vastly superior, and it also offers Vulkan support, which the Quadro 5000 lacks entirely. The RTX A400 is the clear winner for any modern compute workload, including those that leverage the card's 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS, more than 3.7 times the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS, reinforces this conclusion.

The RTX A400 also wins on efficiency and form factor. It consumes 50 W versus 152 W, requires no power connectors, fits in a single slot, and is substantially smaller. It supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. It has more memory (4 GB versus 2.5 GB), a modern display output configuration with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

The Quadro 5000 has no benchmark wins in the database. Its only advantage is higher memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s) and a wider memory bus (320-bit versus 64-bit). These characteristics could benefit specific memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads, but the recorded OpenCL benchmark does not support this hypothesis. The Quadro 5000 also has a wider bus interface (PCIe 2.0 x16) and more TMUs (44 versus 24) and ROPs (40 versus 16), but these advantages do not translate into any recorded performance win.

For users with legacy applications that require the Fermi architecture or specific Quadro 5000 driver behavior, the older card remains an option. However, the data shows no scenario where the Quadro 5000 outperforms the RTX A400 in the recorded tests. The RTX A400 is the recommended choice for all measured workloads, with the Quadro 5000 relegated to historical or compatibility-specific use cases.