NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits cleanly across the two benchmark workloads. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, making it the stronger overall performer in this comparison. In the Geekbench Metal test, the Quadro K5000 scores 6,324 against the GTX 675MX's 6,131, a margin of 3.1%. The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Quadro K5000 posts 11,418 versus the GTX 675MX's 10,723, a 6.5% advantage.

The GeForce GTX 675MX has no wins in the recorded benchmarks. Its only notable edge is thermal: it carries a 100 W TDP versus 122 W for the Quadro K5000, making it the more power-efficient option in raw wattage terms. The GTX 675MX also ships as an MXM module with no external power connector, which positions it for portable chassis rather than desktop workstations.

For use-case segmentation, the Quadro K5000 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL. The 6.5% lead in that test is substantial enough to matter for rendering or simulation tasks that scale with raw throughput. The GTX 675MX, by contrast, is a mobile part that trades absolute performance for integration flexibility. Its Metal score trails by only 3.1%, so in graphics-bound tasks the gap is less punishing, but it still loses.

The database also shows broader context. The Quadro K5000 sits at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 675MX sits at the 43rd. That three-percentile gap aligns with the average benchmark scores: 9,637 for the Quadro versus 8,427 for the GTX, a difference of roughly 14%. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645 (a 0.1% gap), the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.2%), and the Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.3%). None of those rivals outpace the Quadro K5000 by more than a fraction of a percent, meaning the K5000 is positioned near the median of its peer set. The GTX 675MX's rivals include the Radeon 880M at 8,436 (0.1% gap), the GeForce MX330 at 8,458 (0.4%), and the Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462 (0.4%). The only rival that scores below it is the Radeon R9 M375X at 8,325, which the GTX 675MX beats by 1.2%.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same foundation: the GK104 chip built on Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both pack 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The silicon is identical in physical composition, but the configuration differs meaningfully.

The Quadro K5000 carries 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 675MX reduces those counts to 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 60% increase in shading units and a 60% increase in texture units for the Quadro, while the ROP count stays the same. The pixel rate reflects this: the Quadro hits 22.59 GPixel/s, the GTX 675MX only 13.08 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same trend, with the Quadro at 90.37 GTexel/s versus 52.32 GTexel/s.

The compute output is also lopsided. The Quadro K5000 delivers 2.169 TFLOPS of FP32, while the GTX 675MX produces 1,255.7 GFLOPS (roughly 1.256 TFLOPS). The Quadro is about 73% higher in raw shader throughput. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware blocks.

Clock behavior differs in an important way. The Quadro K5000 lists a base clock of 706 MHz and a boost clock of 706 MHz, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency without dynamic overclocking headroom. The GTX 675MX has no recorded base or boost clocks at all, which is typical of mobile MXM parts where the system firmware governs throttling. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro runs its GDDR5 at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the GTX 675MX runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). Combined with the same 256-bit bus width, this produces 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth for the Quadro versus 115.2 GB/s for the GTX, a 50% gap.

The memory size is also different: 4 GB on the Quadro, 2 GB on the GTX. The Quadro uses dual-slot cooling and a single 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 675MX is an MXM module with no power connectors and a "portable device dependent" display output configuration. The Quadro's display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The API support is identical for both: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The bus interfaces diverge, with the Quadro using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the GTX 675MX using MXM-B (3.0).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins with a score of 6,324 versus 6,131 for the GTX 675MX, a 3.1% difference.

Q: How large is the OpenCL gap?

A: The Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 675MX scores 10,723. That is a 6.5% lead for the Quadro.

Q: Do both cards use the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GK104 chip with the Kepler architecture, built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the Quadro's memory runs at 5.4 Gbps effective versus 3.6 Gbps for the GTX.

Q: Is the GTX 675MX more power-efficient?

A: Yes, the GTX 675MX has a TDP of 100 W, which is 22 W lower than the Quadro K5000's 122 W. The GTX also has no power connectors, as it is an MXM module.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Quadro K5000 averages 9,637 across all benchmarks, while the GTX 675MX averages 8,427. The Quadro sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, the GTX at the 43rd.

Specification Differences

A direct comparison shows where the two parts diverge:

| Specification | Quadro K5000 | GTX 675MX |

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

| Shading Units | 1,536 | 960 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 128 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | None recorded |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | None recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz, 5.4 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 3.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 22.59 GPixel/s | 13.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate Fill | 90.37 GTexel/s | 52.32 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 2.169 TFLOPS | 1,255.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | Not specified |

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

| Release Date | 2012-08-16 | 2012-09-30 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | GeForce 500M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 700M |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | Not specified |

The architecture generation differs, with the Quadro listed as "Quadro Kepler (Kx000)" and the GTX as "GeForce 600M". The transistor density is identical at 12.0M / mm², and die size is the same at 294 mm².

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head tests cover two workloads, and the Quadro K5000 wins both.

In Geekbench Metal, the Quadro scores 6,324 against 6,131 for the GTX 675MX. The 3.1% delta is modest and within the range of normal application variability, but it is a consistent edge. The GTX 675MX is not far behind in this test, meaning that for Metal-accelerated workloads on a system that supports both, the Quadro offers only a marginal advantage.

The Geekbench OpenCL test is where the Quadro separates itself. A score of 11,418 versus 10,723 gives it a 6.5% win. This is the larger of the two deltas, and it aligns with the underlying hardware differences. The Quadro has 60% more shading units and 60% more TMUs, along with substantially higher memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s versus 15.2 GB/s). The GTX provides only 1,255.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, the Quadro's 2.169 TFLOPS is roughly 73% higher. That raw compute advantage translates directly into OpenCL performance, which relies heavily on shader throughput and memory bandwidth.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across the full database, the Quadro K5000 averages 9,637, which is 14.4% higher than the GTX 675MX's 8,427. The percentile ranking confirms the gap: the Quadro is in the 46th percentile, the GTX in the 43rd. The Quadro's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its average score (the GTX 960M at 9,645, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653, the Quadro P4000 at 9,665), while the GTX's nearest rivals sit a few points lower (the Radeon 880M at 8,436, the GeForce MX330 at 8,458, the Radeon HD 8870M at 8,462).

The 6.5% OpenCL win for the Quadro is the largest margin in the recorded data. It is the kind of gap that matters for compute-driven tasks. The 3.1% Metal win is smaller but still a decisive victory. The GTX 675MX has no recorded benchmark win, and its only advantages are lower power draw and a smaller physical footprint. For any workload measured in the database, the Quadro K5000 is the superior performer.