NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M

The data presents an unusual comparison: the older GeForce GTX 670M and the newer Quadro M5000M sit nearly tied in aggregate benchmark scores, yet their individual performance profiles could hardly be more different. The GTX 670M, a Fermi 2.0 part from the GeForce 600M generation, averages 6513 points across its single OpenCL benchmark, while the Quadro M5000M, a Maxwell 2.0 workstation chip, posts an average of 6481 — a gap of just 0.5% in favor of the older card. But that aggregate parity masks a dramatic split: the Quadro crushes the GTX 670M in the one test both share, while the GTX 670M's average is propped up by having only that single benchmark result. The percentile rankings tell a similar story of near-parity — 38th percentile for the GTX 670M versus 37th for the Quadro — yet the underlying specifications suggest the Quadro should be overwhelmingly faster. This contradiction makes the comparison worth investigating: how can a GPU with roughly four times the shading units, four times the memory, and double the memory bandwidth end up with a lower average score?

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark wins are lopsided in terms of count — the Quadro M5000M takes the sole head-to-head victory — but the GTX 670M claims the higher aggregate average. In the only direct comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M5000M scores 22920 against the GTX 670M's 6513, a 71.6% margin. That single result defines the Quadro's compute capability, and it is the clearest win for either card in the dataset.

However, the GTX 670M wins on average score, at 6513 versus 6481, and it also edges out the Quadro in the nearest-rival table, with a 0.5% deltaPct versus the Quadro's -0.5% when compared directly. The GTX 670M's percentile rank of 38 is one point higher than the Quadro's 37. In practical terms, the GTX 670M's advantage is razor-thin and rests entirely on the fact that its benchmark portfolio consists of a single OpenCL run, whereas the Quadro's average is diluted by additional tests.

The Quadro M5000M, meanwhile, shows its strengths across a broader benchmark suite. Its Passmark scores include 7062 in G3D, 2756 in GPU Compute, 476 in G2D, 119 in DirectX 9, 54 in DirectX 11, 35 in DirectX 10, and 29 in DirectX 12. The GTX 670M has no corresponding Passmark results, so any use-case analysis must lean on the Quadro's wider coverage. For workloads that stress OpenCL compute, the Quadro is the clear winner; for the specific Geekbench OpenCL test, it is 71.6% ahead. The GTX 670M's only claim to victory is its marginally higher aggregate score, which is a statistical artifact of how its benchmarks are weighted rather than evidence of real-world superiority.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher aggregate benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M, with an average benchmark score of 6513, edges out the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M's 6481 — a 0.5% difference in the GTX 670M's favor.

Q: How does the Quadro M5000M perform in the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M5000M scores 22920 versus the GTX 670M's 6513, a delta of -71.6% from the Quadro's perspective, meaning the Quadro is roughly 3.5 times faster in that test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The GTX 670M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth and over five times the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro M5000M has a transistor density of 13.1M per mm², compared to the GTX 670M's 5.9M per mm², despite both being fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 670M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 670M lists no Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro M5000M, at 67.26 GPixel/s, compared to the GTX 670M's 8.372 GPixel/s — a difference of roughly eightfold in favor of the Quadro.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the dataset is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is not close. The Quadro M5000M delivers 22920 points, while the GTX 670M manages 6513. That is a 71.6% deficit for the older card, meaning the Quadro outperforms it by a factor of 3.5 in raw OpenCL compute throughput. This result aligns with the underlying hardware: the Quadro has 1536 shading units versus 336, 96 texture mapping units versus 56, and 64 ROPs versus 24. The Quadro's FP32 throughput is 3.229 TFLOPS, while the GTX 670M's is 803.7 GFLOPS — a fourfold difference that the benchmark reflects.

The GTX 670M's aggregate score of 6513 comes solely from this OpenCL test, which means its entire benchmark identity rests on a single data point where it is dramatically outperformed. The Quadro's average of 6481, by contrast, is pulled down by its Passmark results, which include a low DirectX 10 score of 35, DirectX 11 of 54, and DirectX 12 of 29. Those legacy API scores are likely not representative of the Quadro's full capability — its Passmark G3D score of 7062 and GPU Compute score of 2756 are far more substantial — but they do suppress its average to near-parity with the GTX 670M.

The nearest-rival data reinforces the closeness of the aggregates. The GTX 670M is 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GT 555M, 0.5% ahead of the Quadro M5000M, and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, while trailing the Intel UHD Graphics P750 by 0.6%. The Quadro M5000M, meanwhile, is 0.1% ahead of the Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, 0.2% behind the GT 555M, 0.5% behind the GTX 670M, and 1.1% behind the Intel UHD Graphics P750. These deltas are all within a 1.7% band, indicating that the aggregate scores place all five GPUs in a tight cluster, despite the Quadro's overwhelming OpenCL advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 670M is built on a 40 nm process, while the Quadro M5000M uses a 28 nm process, both from TSMC. The GTX 670M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding 5.9M transistors per mm²; the Quadro packs 5,200 million transistors into 398 mm², for 13.1M per mm². The Quadro's transistor density is more than double that of the GTX 670M.

Memory is another major divergence. The GTX 670M offers 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit interface, with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The Quadro M5000M provides 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro has more than five times the memory capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Core counts differ substantially: the GTX 670M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, while the Quadro M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 670M runs at a memory clock of 750 MHz but lists no base or boost clock; the Quadro has a base clock of 962 MHz and a boost clock of 1051 MHz. The GTX 670M's pixel rate is 8.372 GPixel/s and texture rate is 33.49 GTexel/s; the Quadro's pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s and texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 803.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 670M versus 3.229 TFLOPS for the Quadro.

The GTX 670M has a TDP of 75 W; the Quadro M5000M is rated at 100 W. Both use MXM Module slot width and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Both are end-of-life products, with the GTX 670M released on 2012-03-21 and the Quadro M5000M on 2015-08-17.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The GTX 670M is based on the GF114 chip, using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 600M generation. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. Fermi 2.0 was designed for the 40 nm node, while Maxwell 2.0 leverages the 28 nm process, which explains the Quadro's higher transistor density despite a larger die.

The API support differs as well. The GTX 670M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but lists no Vulkan support. The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means the Quadro is fully compliant with modern Vulkan workloads, while the GTX 670M has no Vulkan capability at all. Both lack ray tracing and tensor cores, as neither architecture includes those features.

The memory architectures are also distinct. The GTX 670M's 192-bit bus and 1536 MB capacity reflect its mobile gaming heritage, while the Quadro's 256-bit bus and 8 GB capacity indicate a workstation-oriented design meant for larger datasets. The Quadro's base and boost clocks are explicitly listed, whereas the GTX 670M's clocks are absent for core frequencies, suggesting the GTX 670M may rely on dynamic clocking that the database does not capture.

The Verdict

The data makes one point unambiguous: the Quadro M5000M is the far more capable GPU in raw compute terms. Its 22920 OpenCL score versus the GTX 670M's 6513 is a 71.6% margin, and its specifications — 1536 shading units, 8 GB memory, 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 — all point to a card that should dominate in any compute-heavy or memory-intensive workload. The GTX 670M's aggregate score advantage of 0.5% is a function of benchmark coverage, not performance; it has only one benchmark result, while the Quadro's average is diluted by low legacy DirectX scores.

The GTX 670M's case rests on its lower TDP of 75 W versus 100 W and its marginally higher aggregate score, but neither compensates for the performance gap. For anyone running OpenCL workloads, the Quadro M5000M is the only choice. For legacy DirectX 9 applications, the Quadro's 119 Passmark score is the highest of its DirectX results, but the GTX 670M has no comparable data. The Quadro's Vulkan 1.4 support gives it future-proofing that the GTX 670M cannot match.

The verdict is straightforward from the data: the Quadro M5000M wins on every substantive performance metric, while the GTX 670M's only "win" is a statistical artifact of an incomplete benchmark portfolio. Users needing a mobile GPU for compute, modern API support, or large memory buffers should pick the Quadro. The GTX 670M remains a competent entry-level mobile part for its era, but the benchmark evidence shows it is outclassed by the Quadro in every meaningful comparison.