NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost and the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 represent two very different eras and purposes in NVIDIA’s lineup, yet their average benchmark scores place them nearly identical in the database. The GTX 650 Ti Boost averages 8067, while the Quadro P5000 averages 8039, a difference of only 0.3% in favor of the older card. The data shows a fascinating split: the Quadro P5000 dominates in raw compute, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost wins decisively in a specific graphics API test. This head-to-head is less about overall speed and more about workload-specific strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their two shared benchmark tests exactly one win each. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P5000 delivers a massive victory. It scores 52509 against the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 9302, a delta of -82.3% from the perspective of the older card. That is not a small margin; the Quadro P5000 is roughly 5.6 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The result reflects the fundamental gap in shading units and memory bandwidth between the two products. The GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 1.585 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is simply outclassed by the Quadro P5000’s 8.873 TFLOPS.

However, the Geekbench Vulkan test tells the opposite story. Here, the GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 10041, while the Quadro P5000 manages only 6342. The deltaPct is 58.3% in favor of the GTX 650 Ti Boost, meaning the older card is over 58% faster in this specific Vulkan benchmark. This is a surprising result given the architectural gap, but the data is clear. The GTX 650 Ti Boost also holds a slight edge in the average benchmark score comparison, edging out the Quadro P5000 by a 0.3% margin. The two cards are effectively tied in overall standing, with the GTX 650 Ti Boost sitting in a percentile of 42 versus the Quadro P5000’s 41.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the two cards occupy the same performance tier. The GTX 650 Ti Boost is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M. The Quadro P5000 sits at a 0% delta against the GTX 880M and is 0.2% behind the GTX 650 Ti. The data shows a cluster of cards within a 0.5% window, with the GRID K2 at the top. This means that despite the massive internal differences, the aggregate scores place these two cards in the same league.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P5000 is the clear winner for any workload that stresses raw compute throughput. The Geekbench OpenCL result is the headline, but the underlying hardware supports it. With 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, the Quadro P5000 has far more parallel processing capacity. Its 288.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth is double that of the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 144.2 GB/s. This makes the Quadro P5000 the obvious choice for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulations, or any task that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose computation. The data shows a 5.6x advantage in this area, which is a decisive factor.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost wins in the Geekbench Vulkan test, and that is its primary claim to fame in this comparison. A 58.3% lead in Vulkan performance suggests that the older Kepler architecture handles this particular API workload more efficiently. The GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 768 shading units and 24 ROPs are far fewer, but the benchmark result indicates that Vulkan execution on this card is optimized better than on the Pascal-based Quadro. For users running Vulkan-based applications or games, the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the better performer according to the data.

Beyond that single Vulkan win, the GTX 650 Ti Boost also has the edge in the aggregate. Its average benchmark score of 8067 is higher than the Quadro P5000’s 8039. The percentile ranking also slightly favors the older card, 42 versus 41. This means that in a broad mix of workloads, the GTX 650 Ti Boost holds its own and even slightly outperforms the Quadro P5000, despite being three years older and having a fraction of the hardware resources.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses the GK106 chip with a Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip with a Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a much more advanced 16 nm node. This node difference is significant: the Quadro P5000 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost fits 2,540 million transistors into a smaller 221 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the Quadro P5000 has 22.9M transistors per mm², whereas the GTX 650 Ti Boost has only 11.5M per mm².

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Quadro P5000 has a base clock of 1607 MHz and a boost clock of 1733 MHz. The GTX 650 Ti Boost runs at a base of 980 MHz and boosts to 1032 MHz. This clock advantage, combined with the larger core, explains the Quadro P5000’s massive lead in pixel rate and texture rate. The Quadro P5000 delivers 110.9 GPixel/s and 277.3 GTexel/s, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost manages 16.51 GPixel/s and 66.05 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are equally different. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, running at 1502 MHz with an effective data rate of 6 Gbps. The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, running at 1127 MHz with an effective rate of 9 Gbps. This gives the Quadro P5000 a bandwidth of 288.5 GB/s versus the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 144.2 GB/s. The API support also differs: the GTX 650 Ti Boost supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost has an average benchmark score of 8067, while the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 scores 8039. The GTX 650 Ti Boost is 0.3% ahead.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P5000 scores 52509 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 9302. The Quadro P5000 wins with a deltaPct of -82.3% from the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s perspective.

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 10041, compared to the Quadro P5000’s 6342. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a 58.3% lead.

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

A: The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The Quadro P5000 also has a wider 256-bit bus versus the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 192-bit bus.

Q: How do the transistor counts differ?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 7,200 million transistors on its GP104 chip, while the GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2,540 million transistors on its GK106 chip. The Quadro P5000’s die is larger at 314 mm² versus 221 mm².

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W and requires a 450 W suggested PSU with a 1x 8-pin connector. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a TDP of 134 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU with a 1x 6-pin connector.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every key specification. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses a 28 nm process node, while the Quadro P5000 uses 16 nm. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost of 1032 MHz, whereas the Quadro P5000 runs at 1607 MHz base and 1733 MHz boost. Memory is a major split: the GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 192-bit bus and 144.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth.

The shading units differ drastically: 768 on the GTX 650 Ti Boost versus 2560 on the Quadro P5000. The TMU count is 64 versus 160, and the ROP count is 24 versus 64. Pixel rate is 16.51 GPixel/s on the GTX 650 Ti Boost versus 110.9 GPixel/s on the Quadro P5000. Texture rate is 66.05 GTexel/s versus 277.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1.585 TFLOPS versus 8.873 TFLOPS. The Quadro P5000 also has FP16 performance of 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 650 Ti Boost has no listed FP16 capability.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a TDP of 134 W with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W with a 1x 8-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The GTX 650 Ti Boost is 241 mm long (9.5 inches), while the Quadro P5000 is 267 mm long (10.5 inches) and 111 mm high (4.4 inches). Display outputs differ: the GTX 650 Ti Boost has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro P5000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. The Quadro P5000 is the overwhelming winner for compute-heavy tasks. Its 5.6x lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 power and 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth, makes it the only rational pick for OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or professional compute workloads. The 16 GB of GDDR5X memory is also a decisive factor for large datasets that would exhaust the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 2 GB frame buffer. For professional users running CUDA or OpenCL applications, the Quadro P5000 is the superior choice without question.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost is the pick for Vulkan-based applications. Its 58.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is substantial and suggests that Kepler handles this API more effectively than Pascal in this specific test. The GTX 650 Ti Boost also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score, 8067 versus 8039, and a higher percentile ranking. For users on a tight power budget, the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 134 W TDP is notably lower than the Quadro P5000’s 180 W, and it requires a less powerful PSU.

The choice comes down to software. If the workload is Vulkan-centric, the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the data-backed winner. If the workload is compute-centric with OpenCL, the Quadro P5000 is the only logical option. The average scores are close enough that neither card is a universal recommendation over the other; the specific benchmark results define their respective strengths. A builder targeting OpenCL compute should take the Quadro P5000, while a Vulkan-focused user should take the GTX 650 Ti Boost. The data does not support a single winner across all scenarios.