NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 dominates with a score of 52,509, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 scores 9,058. The Quadro P5000 leads by 82.7%, a massive margin that reflects its much newer architecture and higher compute resources.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 560 sits in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P5000 sits in the 41st percentile. Despite the Quadro’s far higher raw score, its average benchmark score across multiple tests (8,039) is actually lower than the GTX 560’s single-test average (9,058), because the database averages many different workload types for the Quadro.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GTX 560 has 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth, offering 16 times the capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX and Vulkan features?

A: The Quadro P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power connector requirement for each card?

A: The GTX 560 requires two 6-pin power connectors, while the Quadro P5000 requires a single 8-pin connector. Both cards have a suggested power supply rating of 450 W.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The Quadro P5000 achieves 110.9 GPixel/s and 277.3 GTexel/s, versus the GTX 560’s 11.34 GPixel/s and 45.36 GTexel/s. The Quadro is roughly 9.8 times faster in pixel throughput and 6.1 times faster in texture throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations, separated by five years of NVIDIA design evolution. The GTX 560 uses the GF114 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 40 nm process. The Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip built on Pascal architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 16 nm process. This process shrink from 40 nm to 16 nm is the single most important enabler of the Quadro’s superior performance, as it allows far more transistors in a similar die area.

The transistor counts tell the story clearly. The GTX 560 packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P5000 packs 7,200 million transistors on a slightly smaller 314 mm² die, yielding a density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. This is nearly four times the density, allowing the Quadro to house vastly more compute units.

The shading resources differ by an order of magnitude. The GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro P5000 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is 7.6 times more shading units, 2.9 times more TMUs, and exactly twice the ROP count. These raw resource differences drive most of the performance gap.

Clock speeds also favor the Quadro. The GTX 560 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Quadro P5000 runs at a 1,607 MHz base clock and 1,733 MHz boost clock, with memory at 1,127 MHz (9 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s higher core clocks combine with its larger shader count to produce an FP32 compute rating of 8.873 TFLOPS, versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS for the GTX 560, an 8.1 times difference.

The memory subsystems reflect their different missions. The GTX 560 uses 1 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro P5000 uses 16 GB of GDDR5X. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the Quadro’s faster memory type yields 288.5 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. The Quadro also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 560 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, which halves the available host bandwidth.

The API support also diverges. The GTX 560 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it supports the DirectX 12 API but with feature level 11_0. The Quadro P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), the full feature set. The Quadro adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the GTX 560 has no Vulkan support in the database. Both cards share OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The result is decisive. The Quadro P5000 scores 52,509, while the GTX 560 scores 9,058. The Quadro wins by 82.7%, meaning the GTX 560 delivers only about 17.3% of the Quadro’s performance in this compute-oriented workload.

This margin is consistent with the hardware disparity. Geekbench OpenCL exercises general compute, including FP32 math, memory bandwidth, and shader throughput. The Quadro’s 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the GTX 560’s 1,088.6 GFLOPS suggests an 8.1 times raw compute advantage, but the actual benchmark shows a 5.8 times score advantage. The gap is smaller than raw specs suggest because OpenCL workloads also depend on memory latency, driver efficiency, and workload-specific bottlenecks.

The Quadro’s wins extend to its own benchmark suite. In PassMark G3D, it scores 12,634. In PassMark GPU Compute, it scores 6,508. Its DirectX API scores vary: 170 for DirectX 9, 102 for DirectX 11, 77 for DirectX 10, and 44 for DirectX 12. The PassMark G2D score is 674, reflecting 2D desktop rendering performance.

The GTX 560 has no other benchmark entries beyond Geekbench OpenCL. Its percentile of 45 places it slightly above the Quadro’s 41, but this is misleading because the GTX 560’s percentile is based on a single favorable compute test, while the Quadro’s percentile averages across many workloads including older DirectX versions where it may not shine.

The nearest rivals listed in the database provide context. The GTX 560’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon 890M, which scores 9,210 and beats it by 1.7%. The GTX 560 edges out the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition by 0.2% (9,058 vs 9,037) and the GeForce GTX 660 by 0.4% (9,058 vs 9,022). The AMD Radeon 550X trails by 1.6%. These are all close scores, indicating the GTX 560 sits in a dense cluster of mid-range GPUs.

The Quadro P5000’s nearest rivals cluster tightly around 8,000. The GeForce GTX 880M scores 8,040, essentially tied with the Quadro’s 8,039 average. The GTX 650 Ti scores 8,053 (0.2% higher), the GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 8,067 (0.3% higher), and the GRID K2 scores 8,080 (0.5% higher). This shows the Quadro’s average is dragged down by its older DirectX scores, despite its massive OpenCL win.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two cards differ:

| Specification | GTX 560 | Quadro P5000 |

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

| Chip | GF114 | GP104 |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Pascal |

| Generation | GeForce 500 | Quadro Pascal (Px000) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1607 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1733 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps) | 1127 MHz (9 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 288.5 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 56 | 160 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.34 GPixel/s | 110.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.36 GTexel/s | 277.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,088.6 GFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 150 W | 180 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches), 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2011-05-16 | 2016-09-30 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 400 | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | GeForce 600 | Quadro Volta |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | 2,499 USD |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro P5000 is the far more powerful GPU. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,509 versus 9,058 represents an 82.7% lead, and this is backed by massive advantages in every hardware specification that matters for compute and rendering. The Quadro has 7.6 times more shading units, 8.1 times more FP32 throughput, 9.8 times higher pixel rate, and 6.1 times higher texture rate. It also offers 16 GB of memory versus 1 GB, with more than double the bandwidth.

The GTX 560 is an older, lower-end part from 2011. Its only listed advantage is its 45th percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 41st, but this is an artifact of the database averaging. The GTX 560’s percentile comes from a single benchmark, while the Quadro’s average includes older DirectX tests where it scores lower. In the only direct comparison, the Quadro wins by a landslide.

The Verdict for most users is clear: choose the Quadro P5000 if you need maximum compute performance, large memory capacity, modern API support, and professional display outputs. The GTX 560 should only be considered if the workload is specifically tied to its Fermi-era feature set or if the 150 W power draw and smaller physical footprint are critical constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P5000 wins in every measurable compute and graphics workload present in the database. Its OpenCL performance is 82.7% higher, which translates to faster general-purpose GPU computing, machine learning inference, and scientific simulations. Its 16 GB memory capacity allows loading datasets that would exhaust the GTX 560’s 1 GB instantly. Its 288.5 GB/s bandwidth feeds its 2,560 shading units efficiently, and its 110.9 GPixel/s pixel rate handles high-resolution rendering far better.

The Quadro also wins on modern API support. DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 enable current games and professional applications, while the GTX 560 is stuck at DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan. The Quadro’s four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support modern high-refresh and high-resolution monitors, versus the GTX 560’s single mini-HDMI 1.3a and two DVI ports.

The GTX 560 wins in exactly one category: its 45th percentile ranking is higher than the Quadro’s 41st, and its average benchmark score of 9,058 exceeds the Quadro’s 8,039. This is because the database’s average for the Quadro includes its weak PassMark DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores (77, 102, and 44 respectively), which drag down its overall average. The GTX 560 also has a lower 150 W TDP versus 180 W, and a shorter 210 mm length versus 267 mm, making it easier to fit in compact cases.

For raw compute, the Quadro P5000 is the definitive choice. For legacy compatibility with Fermi-era software, or for a low-power, short-card form factor, the GTX 560 has a narrow niche. But the benchmark data shows a performance gap so large that the GTX 560 cannot be recommended for any modern compute or rendering workload where the Quadro is available.