OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,000VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):230 W

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000
7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components

40%

6.9

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 53% of graphics cards
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 82%
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

44%

5.7

Performance

24%

7.5

Memory

12%

7.1

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 51%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.1

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 60%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-5000
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

Based on 2 · 4

Reviewers agree it delivers strong workstation performance and generous video memory, with hardly any complaints.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components:

44%

5.7

Performance

24%

7.5

Memory

12%

7.1

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity

6.9
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

5.2

Price

6.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
8,435 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 8,435 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 76.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,850 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 3,850 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 75.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
17,525 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 17,525 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 66.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
6,371 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 6,371 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 77.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
11.2 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 11.2 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 72.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
16 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 16 GB of VRAM, which is more than 62% of graphics cards and equal to 28.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
448 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 448 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 41.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
4
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 4 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 97.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
230 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 230 W, which is higher than that of 56.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
265 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 265 W under peak load, which is higher than 63.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
265 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 265 W, which is higher than that of 62.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
230 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
972 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 972 g, which is lighter than 57% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 240 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (384 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    384 vs 144
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 240 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (384 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    384 vs 144
  • 8 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (48 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    48 vs 40
  • 8 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (48 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    48 vs 40
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 27.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • 92.3% more expensive
    NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,000 vs £520).
    £1,000 vs £520
  • 9.3% worse value for money
    NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.78 vs 7.4).
    6.78 vs 7.41
  • 27.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,815 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 28% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (116.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    116.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 50.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (11.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    11.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 15.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,620 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,620 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 5 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2018 vs 2023).
    August 2018
    2018 vs 2023
  • 42.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (8,435 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    8,435 points vs 14,779 points
  • 57.9% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,850 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    3,850 points vs 9,148 points
  • 22.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (17,525 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    17,525 points vs 22,638 points
  • 7.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (348.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    348.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 47.2% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6,371 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    6,371 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • 85.4% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (545 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    545 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (4 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    4 vs 6
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 9.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (45 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    45 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 35 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (35 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    35 dB vs 0 dB
  • 7% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (230 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    230 W vs 215 W
  • 20.5% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (265 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    265 W vs 220 W
  • 6 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (73 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    73 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Avarent
≈ estimated
07/02/2025
Hands-on game test · Monster Hunter Wilds at 1080p, high settings
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 plays very well at 1080p on high settings, with 16 GB of memory making the difference.
9.0
Avarent
≈ estimated
07/02/2025
Hands-on game test · Monster Hunter Wilds at 1440p, top settings
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is playable at 1440p, though the highest settings feel less enjoyable; medium settings look good.
8.0
Nev's Tech Bits
≈ estimated
07/03/2022
Hands-on test · gaming, mining and PassMark benchmarks
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is very powerful and smooth in games, but it is expensive and its mining load was hard to control.
9.0
Adam Wayne Hughes
≈ estimated
25/02/2021
Hands-on review · SolidWorks, Visualize and multitasking tests
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is a very satisfying card, especially for running several demanding programs at once.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
storagereview.com
≈ estimated
15/03/2019
Benchmark review · Workstation GPU
Verdict
The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 suits creative professionals doing heavy rendering and 3D modeling, though it is not the top Turing card.
6.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
29/04/2020
Hardware review · Workstation graphics card
Verdict
The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is a dual-slot workstation card that matches RTX 2080 series performance, with more memory for deep learning.
storagereview.com
15/03/2019
Same outlet as a graded review (counted once)

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

  • Excellent performance for professional creative and technical tasks such as CAD, 3D modelling, and video editing
  • Equipped with 16GB GDDR6 ECC memory, which is beneficial for handling large datasets and deep learning applications
  • Certified drivers ensure stability and optimized performance for professional software from vendors like Solidworks and AutoCAD
  • Features dedicated RT Cores for real-time ray tracing and Tensor Cores for AI-accelerated workflows
  • Support for NVLink allows scaling memory and performance by connecting two GPUs
  • Includes a VirtualLink port for simplified connectivity to high-resolution VR headsets

What customers don't like about NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000

  • High retail price makes it a significant investment compared to consumer-grade alternatives
  • Lack of a backplate in the standard design can lead to potential warping and less protection for the PCB
  • Blower-style cooling design can be loud under heavy load compared to multi-fan consumer solutions
  • Blocked memory overclocking makes it less versatile for secondary tasks like cryptocurrency mining
  • Gaming performance, while capable, is generally lower than consumer cards in the same price bracket

Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is a professional workstation graphics card built on the Turing architecture and a 12nm process, featuring 3,072 CUDA cores, 384 Tensor cores, and 48 RT cores for real-time ray tracing. It is equipped with 16GB of GDDR6 ECC memory on a 256-bit interface, delivering a bandwidth of 448 GB/s and a peak single-precision performance of 11.2 TFLOPS. Key advantages include its ability to scale to 32GB of memory via NVIDIA NVLink, VirtualLink support for high-resolution VR headsets, and ISV certification for stable performance in professional applications like CAD and 3D rendering. However, it is limited by a high launch price of approximately $2,299, a notable power consumption of 230W to 265W that may cause heat issues in small enclosures, and the absence of a protective backplate on the standard blower-style model.

Compare NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found