NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M firmly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M in the single shared benchmark, yet the GTX 680M holds its own in aggregate scoring. The Quadro M5000M’s OpenCL result is more than double that of the older GeForce, a gap that reflects generational shifts in compute architecture and memory resources. However, the GTX 680M’s average benchmark score slightly exceeds the Quadro’s, driven by a broader set of legacy tests where the Kepler part remains competitive. This is not a close contest in raw compute throughput, but the two GPUs serve different purposes, and the numbers reveal distinct strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and here the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M dominates. The Quadro scores 22,920 points against the GTX 680M’s 9,230, a delta of -59.7% from the Quadro’s perspective. That means the GTX 680M delivers less than half the OpenCL performance of the Quadro M5000M. This is a decisive margin, not a marginal improvement. The Quadro’s advantage stems from its higher shader count, faster clocks, and doubled memory capacity, but the benchmark result alone tells the story: for compute workloads that scale with OpenCL, the Quadro is in a different class.

Looking at other benchmarks listed only for the Quadro M5000M, the picture expands. Its Passmark G3D score is 7,062, while its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,756. The GTX 680M lacks these specific results in the data, so no direct comparison is possible there. However, the GTX 680M does have a Geekbench Metal score of 4,815, which is not present for the Quadro. These non-overlapping tests mean the head-to-head is limited, but the OpenCL result is unambiguous. The Quadro wins the only shared test, and it wins by a wide margin.

The aggregate benchmark scores add nuance. The GTX 680M averages 7,023 across its two recorded tests, while the Quadro M5000M averages 6,481 across nine tests. The GTX 680M’s average is 8.4% higher, but this is misleading because the Quadro’s average includes several low-scoring Passmark DirectX tests (e.g., 29 in DirectX 12, 35 in DirectX 10). Those legacy API tests drag the Quadro’s average down, whereas the GTX 680M’s two scores—9,230 in OpenCL and 4,815 in Metal—are both moderate. In raw compute, the Quadro is superior; in aggregate, the GTX 680M edges ahead due to test selection.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, also on 28 nm at TSMC. Despite the same process node, the chips differ substantially in scale. The Quadro’s GM204 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the GTX 680M’s GK104 contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. That translates to a transistor density of 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro versus 12.0M per mm² for the GTX 680M—a modest density advantage for the newer chip.

Core counts favor the Quadro. It has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 680M has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro has more shaders and double the ROPs, but the GTX 680M has more TMUs. Clock speeds also differ: the Quadro runs at 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost, while the GTX 680M runs at 719 MHz base and 758 MHz boost. The Quadro’s higher clocks, combined with more shaders, yield a significant compute advantage—3.229 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.038 TFLOPS for the GTX 680M. Pixel rate tells a similar story: the Quadro hits 67.26 GPixel/s, while the GTX 680M manages 21.22 GPixel/s, a threefold difference driven by the Quadro’s doubled ROP count.

Memory configurations differ as well. The Quadro M5000M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth and memory clocked at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 115.2 GB/s with memory at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s doubled capacity and 39% higher bandwidth are critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Both GPUs use an MXM-B (3.0) interface and share a 100 W TDP, with no external power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

API support also differs. The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). OpenGL is identical at 4.6, but Vulkan versions diverge: the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 680M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro’s newer architecture also means it belongs to a later generation—Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) versus GeForce 600M—with respective successors and predecessors listed in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22,920 versus the GTX 680M’s 9,230, a delta of -59.7% from the Quadro’s perspective.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 680M has a higher average benchmark score of 7,023, compared to the Quadro M5000M’s 6,481. This is influenced by the Quadro’s inclusion of several low Passmark DirectX scores.

Q: What is the memory difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Q: Are clock speeds significantly different?

A: Yes. The Quadro M5000M runs at 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost, while the GTX 680M runs at 719 MHz base and 758 MHz boost.

Q: Do they support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). OpenGL is the same at 4.6, but Vulkan differs (1.4 for Quadro, 1.2.175 for GTX 680M).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M5000M has 1,536 shading units, compared to the GTX 680M’s 1,344. The GTX 680M, however, has more TMUs (112 vs. 96).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. If the workload is compute-heavy and leverages OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the obvious choice. Its 22,920 OpenCL score crushes the GTX 680M’s 9,230, and its higher FP32 throughput (3.229 TFLOPS vs. 2.038 TFLOPS) and doubled memory capacity (8 GB vs. 4 GB) make it suitable for larger, more demanding tasks. The Quadro also excels in pixel processing with a 67.26 GPixel/s rate versus 21.22 GPixel/s, a benefit for rendering pipelines that output to high-resolution displays.

However, the GTX 680M is not without merit. Its higher average benchmark score (7,023 vs. 6,481) and its Geekbench Metal score of 4,815—a test not present for the Quadro—suggest it retains relevance in legacy or Metal-based applications. The GTX 680M also has more TMUs (112 vs. 96), which can aid texture-heavy workloads in certain scenarios. For users constrained to the GTX 680M’s era of software, the aggregate performance remains competitive.

The verdict from the numbers: the Quadro M5000M is the superior compute and rendering part, but the GTX 680M holds a slight edge in aggregate benchmark averages due to test diversity. The Quadro’s wins are decisive in the shared benchmark; the GTX 680M’s wins are marginal and derived from non-overlapping tests. Choose the Quadro for modern, compute-intensive professional tasks; choose the GTX 680M if you need Metal support or are working within its specific legacy ecosystem.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GK104 | GM204 |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 719 MHz | 962 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 758 MHz | 1,051 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,344 | 1,536 |

| TMUs | 112 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.22 GPixel/s | 67.26 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 84.90 GTexel/s | 100.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.038 TFLOPS | 3.229 TFLOPS |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2012-06-03 | 2015-08-17 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500M | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | GeForce 700M | Quadro Pascal-M |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins in compute and rendering scenarios. Its OpenCL benchmark (22,920) is the defining victory, and its FP32 throughput (3.229 TFLOPS) is 58% higher than the GTX 680M’s. The Quadro’s 8 GB memory and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth support larger working sets, while its 64 ROPs deliver 67.26 GPixel/s—more than triple the GTX 680M’s pixel rate. For tasks like GPU-accelerated compute, high-resolution rendering, or any workload that scales with memory capacity and pixel throughput, the Quadro is the clear winner.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M wins in aggregate benchmark averages and specific legacy tests. Its average score of 7,023 exceeds the Quadro’s 6,481, and it holds a Geekbench Metal score of 4,815 that the Quadro lacks. The GTX 680M also has more TMUs (112 vs. 96), which can benefit texture-heavy operations. For applications that rely on Metal, or for users comparing overall benchmark averages across diverse test suites, the GTX 680M holds an edge. Its lower pixel rate and FP32 output make it less suited to modern compute, but within its own benchmark set, it remains competitive.