NVIDIA A2 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though uneven, advantage for the NVIDIA A2 across the two benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A2 posts a score of 35,357 against the Quadro M5000's 29,481. This translates to a 19.9% lead for the A2, a substantial margin that indicates a significant performance gap in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. This is the largest win in the comparison and suggests that the A2's architecture is markedly more efficient at executing the parallel workloads typical of this test.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a closer story. The A2 scores 34,023, while the Quadro M5000 is not far behind with 32,931. The A2's advantage here is a narrower 3.3%. While the A2 still wins, the smaller delta indicates that the older Maxwell architecture in the M5000 remains competitive in this specific graphics API workload. The results suggest that the M5000's higher raw shading unit and texture unit counts can partially offset the A2's architectural advantages in certain rendering tasks, but not enough to secure a victory.

Overall, the A2 secures two wins out of two head-to-head comparisons. The average benchmark score for the A2 is 34,690, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro M5000's average score is 31,206, which puts it in the 76th percentile. While both are comfortably above the median GPU, the A2's higher percentile and average score reinforce its status as the more capable part in this pairing.

The A2's nearest rivals in the database, by average score, include the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB with a delta of 0.4%, and the AMD Radeon HD 7970, also at 0.4%. The NVIDIA TITAN V is a close competitor with a 1% delta, and the RTX A1000 trails by 1.4%. This proximity indicates the A2 is grouped with a cluster of parts that perform at a similar level, even though its architecture is far newer. The Quadro M5000, on the other hand, sits near the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q with a 0% delta, and the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER with a 0.4% delta. It also competes with the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, which is 1% faster, and the TITAN RTX, which is 1.5% faster. The M5000, despite its age, holds its own against these more modern parts in the database's aggregate scoring, but it does not achieve the same heights as the A2.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has the higher average benchmark score at 34,690, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M5000's average of 31,206.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA A2 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA A2 scores 35,357 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19.9% higher than the Quadro M5000's score of 29,481.

Q: Is the Quadro M5000 competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Quadro M5000 scores 32,931, which is only 3.3% behind the A2's score of 34,023.

Q: What is the difference in their overall performance percentiles?

A: The NVIDIA A2 is in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000 is in the 76th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has a slightly higher memory bandwidth at 211.6 GB/s, compared to the NVIDIA A2's 200.1 GB/s.

Q: What is the manufacturing process node for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA A2 is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, representing a generational leap in design philosophy. The NVIDIA A2 is built on the Ampere architecture, utilizing the GA107 chip, and is manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process node allows for a transistor density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter, packing 8,700 million transistors into a die size of just 200 mm². In contrast, the Quadro M5000 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older node results in a transistor density of only 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter, with 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger die of 398 mm².

These process differences directly influence the feature sets. The A2 includes 10 ray tracing cores and 40 tensor cores, hardware that is entirely absent from the Quadro M5000. The M5000's Maxwell architecture predates these dedicated accelerators, meaning it lacks any ray tracing or tensor core capabilities. The A2 also supports a more advanced feature set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, however.

The compute configurations also diverge significantly. The A2 has 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro M5000, despite having fewer transistors, has a higher count of traditional compute units: 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This gives the M5000 a higher texture fill rate of 132.9 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 66.43 GPixel/s, compared to the A2's 70.80 GTexel/s and 56.64 GPixel/s. However, the A2 compensates with a higher FP32 compute rating of 4.531 TFLOPS versus the M5000's 4.252 TFLOPS, and it offers FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio, a feature the M5000 does not provide.

The memory subsystems are also different. The A2 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, delivering 211.6 GB/s. The A2's memory runs at an effective speed of 12.5 Gbps, while the M5000's runs at 6.6 Gbps. The A2's higher capacity is a clear advantage for large datasets, even if its bandwidth is marginally lower.

The Verdict

The data points decisively to the NVIDIA A2 as the superior compute performer. Its 19.9% lead in OpenCL is a dominant result, and its 3.3% lead in Vulkan shows it also holds the edge in graphics workloads. The A2's higher average benchmark score and higher percentile ranking (79th vs. 76th) corroborate this assessment. The A2 also offers twice the memory capacity, a significantly smaller and more power-efficient design, and modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores.

For any workload that prioritizes raw compute throughput, memory capacity, or modern API support, the NVIDIA A2 is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements. Its performance advantages are significant and consistent.

The Quadro M5000, while competitive in Vulkan, is not the superior part in any benchmark within this comparison. Its strengths lie in its higher texture and pixel fill rates, but these do not translate into higher scores in the tests recorded. The M5000 is a capable GPU, but the data shows it is outclassed by the A2 in the most important aggregate metrics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A2 | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ampere | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.1 GB/s | 211.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 40 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 10 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 40 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 4.531 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 56.64 GPixel/s | 66.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 70.80 GTexel/s | 132.9 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 60 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2021-11-09 | 2015-06-28 |

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA A2: The A2 is the definitive winner in compute-intensive tasks. Its 19.9% OpenCL lead is the most significant margin in this comparison, making it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, and any workload that can leverage its tensor cores. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory provides double the capacity of the M5000, which is critical for large models and datasets. The A2's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and FP16 compute also gives it a broader feature set for modern software. Its much lower power draw (60 W vs. 150 W) and single-slot design without external power connectors make it a far more flexible and energy-efficient option for dense server environments.

NVIDIA Quadro M5000: The M5000's wins are limited to specific hardware specifications rather than benchmark victories. It has a higher texture rate (132.9 GTexel/s vs. 70.80 GTexel/s) and a higher pixel rate (66.43 GPixel/s vs. 56.64 GPixel/s), indicating superior fill-rate capabilities for traditional rasterization tasks. Its memory bandwidth is also slightly higher at 211.6 GB/s. The M5000 is the only one of the two with display outputs, offering 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, making it a viable option for a physical workstation with monitors. Its wider 256-bit memory bus and higher TMU/ROP counts are architectural traits that may benefit specific, fill-rate-bound legacy applications.