
FirePro V5900 vs Quadro FX 5800

FirePro V5900
Popular choices:

Quadro FX 5800
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro V5900 is positioned at rank 290 and the Quadro FX 5800 is on rank 392, so the FirePro V5900 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V5900
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 5800
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro V5900 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro FX 5800 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | FirePro V5900 | Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro V5900 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FirePro V5900 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $40), it costs 63% less, resulting in a 171.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro V5900 | Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+171.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro V5900 and Quadro FX 5800

FirePro V5900
The FirePro V5900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 24 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 600 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,232 points.

Quadro FX 5800
The Quadro FX 5800 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,211 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro V5900 scores 1,232 and the Quadro FX 5800 reaches 1,211 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro V5900 is built on TeraScale 3 while the Quadro FX 5800 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 40 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 512 (FirePro V5900) vs 240 (Quadro FX 5800). Raw compute: 0.6144 TFLOPS (FirePro V5900) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 5800).
| Feature | FirePro V5900 | Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,232+2% | 1,211 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 512+113% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6144 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS+1% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 80+150% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro V5900 | Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro V5900 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 5800 has 4 GB. The Quadro FX 5800 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (FirePro V5900) vs 256 KB (Quadro FX 5800) — the FirePro V5900 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro V5900 | Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro V5900 draws 75W versus the Quadro FX 5800's 189W — a 86.4% difference. The FirePro V5900 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro V5900) vs 350W (Quadro FX 5800). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | FirePro V5900 | Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-60% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 112mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 16.4+156% | 6.4 |
Value Analysis
The FirePro V5900 launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Quadro FX 5800 launched at $3499 and now averages $40. The FirePro V5900 costs 62.5% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 82.1 (FirePro V5900) vs 30.3 (Quadro FX 5800) — the FirePro V5900 offers 171% better value. The FirePro V5900 is the newer GPU (2011 vs 2008).
| Feature | FirePro V5900 | Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599-83% | $3499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-63% | $40 |
| Performance per Dollar | 82.1+171% | 30.3 |
| Codename | Cayman | GT200B |
| Release | May 24 2011 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #812 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















