NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB in the two available benchmark comparisons. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1060 5 GB scores 33,397 against the Quadro M5000’s 29,481. This is a substantial 13.3% delta, indicating a significant performance advantage for the consumer card in this compute-oriented workload. The margin narrows considerably in the Vulkan API test, where the GTX 1060 5 GB posts 33,991 versus the Quadro M5000’s 32,931, resulting in a smaller 3.2% lead.

These results are intriguing because they invert the expected hierarchy based on hardware specifications alone. The Quadro M5000 carries more raw resources—more shading units, more texture mapping units, and more ROPs—yet it trails in both exercises. The 13.3% OpenCL deficit is particularly telling; it suggests that architectural efficiency or driver optimizations in the newer Pascal design compensate for the Quadro’s larger silicon. The Vulkan gap of just 3.2% hints that the M5000 can close the distance when the workload is more graphics-oriented and less compute-heavy.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 1060 5 GB’s average score across all tests is 33,694, placing it in the 78th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in this dataset include the NVIDIA RTX A5000 (33,622, a negligible 0.2% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, a 0.5% gap ahead). This shows the GTX 1060 5 GB is competitively positioned against much newer hardware, despite its 2017 release. The Quadro M5000, conversely, averages 31,206, sitting in the 76th percentile. Its closest comparison is the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q (31,220, a 0% delta) and the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (31,087, just 0.4% behind). The M5000’s company here is a mix of professional virtualization and modern gaming cards, yet it holds its ground.

The head-to-head data shows two wins for the GTX 1060 5 GB and zero for the Quadro M5000. However, the margin of victory matters. A 13.3% lead in OpenCL is a decisive statement, while a 3.2% lead in Vulkan is nearly a statistical tie. The implications are that for users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the GTX 1060 5 GB is the clear choice. For those needing consistent Vulkan performance, the M5000 is competitive, though still behind.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of NVIDIA’s GPU design philosophy. The GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP106 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 16 nm process node. In contrast, the Quadro M5000 employs the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, manufactured on the older 28 nm process. This process gap is fundamental—the 16 nm node allows for significantly higher transistor density. The GTX 1060 5 GB’s GP106 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The M5000’s GM204, meanwhile, contains 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die, achieving only 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter.

The clock speeds tell a story of architectural efficiency. The GTX 1060 5 GB runs at a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1709 MHz. The Quadro M5000 is significantly slower in raw clock terms, with a base of 861 MHz and a boost of 1038 MHz. This near-700 MHz difference in boost clocks is a major factor in the GTX 1060 5 GB’s benchmark victories, even though the M5000 has more execution units. The M5000 compensates with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus the GTX 1060 5 GB’s 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Yet the Pascal architecture’s higher clocks and superior instructions-per-clock efficiency overcome this raw unit count disadvantage.

Memory systems also diverge. The GTX 1060 5 GB uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 160.2 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 8 Gbps. The Quadro M5000 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 211.6 GB/s at 6.6 Gbps effective. The M5000’s wider bus and higher capacity are clear advantages for large datasets, but its lower memory clock speeds reduce the bandwidth advantage. In terms of compute throughput, the GTX 1060 5 GB delivers 4.375 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, narrowly edging out the M5000’s 4.252 TFLOPS. The GTX 1060 5 GB also lists FP16 capability at 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the M5000 has no FP16 specification in the data.

Power and physical attributes differ as well. The GTX 1060 5 GB has a TDP of 120 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro M5000 draws more at 150 W, requiring a 450 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 6-pin power connector. The GTX 1060 5 GB is shorter at 250 mm (9.8 inches) versus the M5000’s 267 mm (10.5 inches), and the M5000 also lists a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). Display outputs vary: the GTX 1060 5 GB provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M5000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1060 5 GB is the clear winner in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by its 13.3% OpenCL advantage. This makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, or any task that leverages OpenCL for parallel processing. The Pascal architecture’s higher clock speeds and modern process node give it an edge in throughput-sensitive applications. For Vulkan-based workloads, the GTX 1060 5 GB still leads, but only by 3.2%. This suggests that in real-world gaming or rendering scenarios using Vulkan, the two cards would perform nearly identically, with the GTX 1060 5 GB holding a slight edge.

The Quadro M5000’s strengths lie in its memory configuration and professional positioning. With 8 GB of memory on a 256-bit bus, it offers 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth—a 32% increase over the GTX 1060 5 GB’s 160.2 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited, such as large texture sets, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-intensive visualization, the M5000 would likely pull ahead, even though this advantage is not reflected in the two benchmarks provided. The M5000’s lower clock speeds (861 MHz base, 1038 MHz boost) are a handicap, but its larger complement of TMUs (128 vs. 80) and ROPs (64 vs. 40) could benefit certain graphics pipelines.

The percentile rankings offer context. The GTX 1060 5 GB sits in the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the M5000 is in the 76th. This two-percentile gap underscores the GTX 1060 5 GB’s overall superiority in these tests. However, the M5000’s nearest rivals include the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER and TITAN RTX, which are far more expensive and powerful cards in the broader market. The fact that the M5000 keeps pace with them (within 1.5%) in average score suggests it has enduring relevance in professional circles.

For users with specific needs, the choice is clear. If raw compute performance and modern API support are priorities, the GTX 1060 5 GB wins decisively. If memory capacity and bandwidth are paramount, and the workload favors the M5000’s wider bus, it could be the better fit—though the data does not provide a benchmark to confirm this.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB has an average benchmark score of 33,694, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M5000’s 31,206.

Q: How large is the GTX 1060 5 GB’s lead in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GTX 1060 5 GB scores 33,397 in OpenCL versus the M5000’s 29,481, representing a 13.3% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No, the head-to-head data shows the GTX 1060 5 GB winning both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, with the M5000 recording zero wins.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro M5000 offers 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 1060 5 GB provides 160.2 GB/s on a 160-bit bus.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The GTX 1060 5 GB is built on a 16 nm process, while the Quadro M5000 uses a 28 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: Are the two cards’ Vulkan scores close?

A: Yes, the GTX 1060 5 GB scores 33,991 in Vulkan versus the M5000’s 32,931, a margin of only 3.2%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 |

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

| Chip | GP106 | GM204 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.0M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1709 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.2 GB/s | 211.6 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 80 | 128 |

| ROPs | 40 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 68.36 GPixel/s | 66.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 136.7 GTexel/s | 132.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.375 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not specified |

| TDP | 120 W | 150 W |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 450 W |

| Length | 250 mm (9.8 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Release Date | 2017-12-25 | 2015-06-28 |

| Generation | GeForce 10 | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 in both tested workloads. The 13.3% OpenCL lead is decisive, and the 3.2% Vulkan advantage, while smaller, still favors the GTX 1060 5 GB. For any user prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, or raw benchmark scores, the GTX 1060 5 GB is the better choice.

The Quadro M5000, however, is not without merit. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 211.6 GB/s bandwidth are superior, and its 256-bit bus could prove beneficial in memory-intensive professional applications. The M5000’s higher TDP (150 W vs. 120 W) and larger physical footprint (267 mm vs. 250 mm) are trade-offs that may matter in space-constrained or power-sensitive systems. Its release in 2015 makes it an older design, yet its 76th percentile ranking shows it remains competitive.

The GTX 1060 5 GB, released in 2017, is a more modern card with a smaller die (200 mm² vs. 398 mm²) and higher transistor density (22.0M / mm² vs. 13.1M / mm²). Its Pascal architecture delivers better clock speeds (1709 MHz boost vs. 1038 MHz) and nearly identical FP32 throughput (4.375 vs. 4.252 TFLOPS) despite fewer shading units.

Who should pick which? The GTX 1060 5 GB is the obvious pick for general-purpose compute, gaming, or any workload where the two provided benchmarks are representative. Its lower power draw and shorter length also make it more accommodating for smaller builds. The Quadro M5000 is the pick only for those who specifically need its 8 GB frame buffer or wider memory bus, and who are willing to accept lower compute performance and higher power requirements. The data does not support any other conclusion.