AMD
Radeon 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 840M and Quadro P5000 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Radeon 840M outperforms Quadro P5000 by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Partially verifiedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 0Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon 840M (~10%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Radeon 840M
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: Not publicly specified · AMD FSR
Reasons to consider Quadro P5000
- Recorded feature support: CUDA / OpenCL · No dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
NVIDIAPerformance
8358
Graphics card ranking
Positions 39–44of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
NVIDIA Quadro P5000
78 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
83Better
58
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
66Better
48
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
64Better
46
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
61
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
68Better
62
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
Architecture
Process nodeBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory type
Memory bus
Interface
Power consumption
Power connector
Length
Thickness
Recommended PSU
HDMI
DisplayPort
USB Type-C
Max monitors
Max resolution
DirectX
Upscaling
Release date
TFLOPS
Vulkan
OpenGL
Compute API
Transistor count
Die size
Base clock
Memory bandwidth—
Memory frequency—
Memory cache—
Clock speed—
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100835835%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100856231%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100836623%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100088200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1000100200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100837214%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100837017%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100836623%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100837510%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100836721%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX1212 (feature level 12_1)
VulkanNot publicly specifiedVulkan 1.3
OpenGLNot publicly specified4.6
UpscalingAMD FSRNo dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Compute APINot publicly specifiedCUDA / OpenCL
Architecture and release
ArchitectureRDNA 3.5Pascal
Process node4 nmBetter16 nm
Release date20252016
Device classMobileProf
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified7.2 billion
Die sizeNot publicly specified314 mm²
Shader units / cores4 Compute Units2560 CUDA coresBetter
Base clockNot publicly specified1607 MHz
Boost clockUp to 2900 MHz (depends on host processor)Better1733 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfaceIntegrated into processor packagePCIe 3.0 x16
LengthNot applicable (integrated GPU)267 mm
ThicknessNot applicable (integrated GPU)Dual-slot (38 mm)
Recommended PSUSystem dependent450 W
Power connectorNot applicable (integrated GPU)1× 8-pin PCIe
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.1 (OEM dependent)0 native (DisplayPort adapter supported)
DisplayPortDisplayPort 2.1 (OEM dependent)DisplayPort 1.4
USB Type-CDisplayPort Alt Mode supported; OEM dependentNot supported
Max monitors4 (platform capability)4 simultaneous displays
Max resolution7680 x 4320 @ 60 Hz (DisplayPort)7680×4320 at 30 Hz via DisplayPort 1.4
Memory and compute throughput
VRAMShared system memory; OEM configurable16 GB
Memory typeShared DDR5 / LPDDR5XGDDR5X
Memory busDepends on system memory configuration256-bit
TFLOPSNot publicly specified8.9
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 0
- Specifications
- 18 / 62
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (2)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
No recorded changes yet. Change tracking starts with the evidence system; earlier history has not been reconstructed.
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Radeon 840M or Quadro P5000?+
Radeon 840M has the higher overall gaming score, while Quadro P5000 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Quadro P5000 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Quadro P5000 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Radeon 840M offers more overall performance, while Radeon 840M offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Quadro P5000 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Quadro P5000 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Radeon 840M leads in combined 1440p performance. Radeon 840M can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Radeon 840M is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Radeon 840M is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Radeon 840M is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Radeon 840M if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.