NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 and NVIDIA Quadro M5000M represent two very different interpretations of the Maxwell architecture, separated by a generation and a gulf in intended purpose. The data shows a decisive performance advantage for the Quadro M5000M in the available head-to-head tests, but a closer look at the benchmark averages and percentile rankings reveals a more complex story about how these GPUs are positioned and what their raw scores actually mean in practice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two direct comparisons available in the data are both compute-oriented workloads, and the Quadro M5000M wins both by a substantial margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 against the GTX 750’s 9,315, a delta of -59.4% from the perspective of the GTX 750. That is not a marginal lead; it is a near 2.5x advantage in raw compute throughput. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the Quadro M5000M posting 24,875 versus 8,078 for the GTX 750, a -67.5% delta. This is the largest relative gap between the two cards in any shared metric, indicating the Quadro’s advantage grows even larger in API-level compute workloads.

Interestingly, the GTX 750 has a higher average benchmark score across all its recorded tests (7,222) than the Quadro M5000M (6,481). This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, and it stems from the composition of their benchmark suites. The GTX 750’s average is pulled from three Geekbench tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), all of which score in the thousands. The Quadro M5000M’s average includes PassMark tests that score very low (e.g., PassMark DirectX 12 at 29, DirectX 10 at 35), which drags its mean down despite its dominant Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores. The data suggests the Quadro M5000M is a specialist that excels in modern compute APIs but underperforms in legacy DirectX rasterization tests, while the GTX 750 is more consistent across its narrower test set.

The percentile rankings reinforce this paradox. The GTX 750 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000M is at the 37th percentile. Despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, the GTX 750 is statistically the better-performing card relative to the broader GPU landscape. This is likely because the Quadro M5000M’s PassMark scores, particularly the DirectX 9 score of 119 and G2D score of 476, are not competitive with even entry-level gaming cards, whereas the GTX 750’s Geekbench scores are more uniformly respectable.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Quadro M5000M win all head-to-head benchmarks but have a lower average score?

A: The Quadro M5000M’s average of 6,481 is depressed by its PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores (119, 35, 54, and 29 respectively), which are extremely low. The GTX 750’s average of 7,222 is based solely on Geekbench scores (4,274 Metal, 9,315 OpenCL, 8,078 Vulkan), which are all in the thousands. The two cards are tested on different benchmark suites, and the Quadro’s inclusion of PassMark tests disproportionately lowers its average.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro M5000M has a slightly higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm², compared to the GTX 750’s 12.6M per mm². Both are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the Quadro packs more transistors into each square millimeter of die area.

Q: Is the GTX 750 better than the Quadro M5000M in any benchmark?

A: No, based on the data, the GTX 750 does not win any of the two head-to-head tests. The Quadro M5000M wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. However, the GTX 750 has a higher percentile rank (40th vs 37th) and a higher average benchmark score (7,222 vs 6,481), so it appears more well-rounded across its test suite even if it loses direct comparisons.

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

A: The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is eight times the 1,024 MB (1 GB) found on the GTX 750. The Quadro also has a 256-bit memory bus versus the GTX 750’s 128-bit bus, resulting in 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The GTX 750 has a higher boost clock at 1,085 MHz, while the Quadro M5000M boosts to 1,051 MHz. The base clocks follow the same pattern, with the GTX 750 at 1,020 MHz and the Quadro at 962 MHz. Despite lower clocks, the Quadro wins compute benchmarks due to its larger shader count.

Q: Are both cards the same architecture?

A: No, the GTX 750 uses the original Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), while the Quadro M5000M uses Maxwell 2.0 (chip GM204). Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC, but Maxwell 2.0 is a revised, more capable architecture, as evidenced by the Quadro’s support for DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the GTX 750’s DirectX 12 (11_0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant, starting with their chips. The GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip, which is the entry point for Maxwell, while the Quadro M5000M uses the GM204, a larger and more advanced Maxwell 2.0 design. The transistor count tells the story: GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while GM204 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. That is roughly 2.8 times more transistors on a 2.7 times larger die, which explains the Quadro’s superior compute throughput.

The shading units differ dramatically: the GTX 750 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro M5000M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs — exactly three times the shading units and TMUs, and four times the ROPs. This explains the Quadro’s pixel rate of 67.26 GPixel/s versus the GTX 750’s 17.36 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 100.9 GTexel/s versus 34.72 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also starkly different: 3.229 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 1,111.0 GFLOPS for the GTX 750, a near 3x advantage.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX 750 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 1 GB of GDDR5 and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000M doubles the bus width to 256-bit, quadruples the capacity to 8 GB, and doubles bandwidth to 160.4 GB/s. Both run memory at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the wider bus. For workloads that are memory-bound, like large dataset compute or high-resolution texture streaming, the Quadro has a clear structural advantage.

The process node is identical — both are 28 nm from TSMC — and the foundry is the same. However, the transistor density differs slightly: 12.6M per mm² for the GTX 750 versus 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro M5000M. This is a minor architectural refinement, not a process change. API support also differs: the GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and the same OpenGL 4.6. Both support Vulkan 1.4, so the biggest API gap is the DirectX feature level, where the Quadro is more modern.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in purpose. The Quadro M5000M is the undeniable winner in raw compute performance, dominating the GTX 750 in Geekbench OpenCL (22,920 vs 9,315) and Vulkan (24,875 vs 8,078). It also has vastly more memory (8 GB vs 1 GB), higher bandwidth (160.4 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), and three times the shading units (1,536 vs 512). For any workload that stresses compute shaders, large textures, or parallel data processing, the Quadro M5000M is the only rational choice based on this data.

However, the GTX 750 is not without merit. Its higher percentile rank (40th vs 37th) and higher average benchmark score (7,222 vs 6,481) suggest it is the more consistent performer across a broader range of tasks. The Quadro M5000M’s PassMark scores are abysmal — DirectX 9 at 119, DirectX 10 at 35, DirectX 11 at 54, DirectX 12 at 29 — which indicates it is poorly optimized for legacy or even current rasterization-based gaming workloads. The GTX 750, by contrast, has no such weak points in its recorded benchmarks.

The verdict is not about which is "better" in absolute terms, but which fits the use case. If the task is modern compute APIs like OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M5000M is overwhelmingly superior. If the task is general-purpose GPU usage, the GTX 750’s consistency and higher percentile ranking make it the safer bet. The Quadro’s lower average score is a red flag for mixed workloads, while the GTX 750’s lower peak performance caps its ceiling in compute-heavy scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every core specification. The GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors, while the Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 with 5,200 million. Die size is 148 mm² versus 398 mm², and transistor density is 12.6M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm². Base clocks are 1,020 MHz for the GTX 750 and 962 MHz for the Quadro, with boost clocks of 1,085 MHz and 1,051 MHz respectively. Both have the same memory clock of 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 1,024 MB for the GTX 750 and 8 GB for the Quadro. Bus width is 128-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. Shading units are 512 versus 1,536, TMUs are 32 versus 96, and ROPs are 16 versus 64. Pixel rate is 17.36 GPixel/s versus 67.26 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 34.72 GTexel/s versus 100.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,111.0 GFLOPS versus 3.229 TFLOPS.

Power consumption differs significantly: the GTX 750 has a TDP of 55 W with no power connectors, while the Quadro M5000M has a TDP of 100 W and is a MXM Module form factor with no power connectors. The GTX 750 is a single-slot card with a 145 mm length (5.7 inches), while the Quadro has no listed dimensions. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 750 and MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a for the GTX 750, versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro. The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0); the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 750 has a launch MSRP of 119 USD; the Quadro has no launch MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M wins decisively in compute-intensive benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 59.4% faster than the GTX 750, and in Geekbench Vulkan it is 67.5% faster. These are the only head-to-head tests available, and the Quadro wins both outright. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large data sets, and its 3.229 TFLOPS FP32 compute is nearly triple the GTX 750’s 1,111.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (67.26 GPixel/s vs 17.36 GPixel/s) and texture rate (100.9 GTexel/s vs 34.72 GTexel/s), so any workload that is fill-rate bound will favor the Quadro.

The GTX 750 wins on efficiency and consistency. Its 55 W TDP is nearly half the Quadro’s 100 W, and it requires no power connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU. Its single-slot form factor and 145 mm length make it a drop-in card for compact systems, whereas the Quadro is an MXM Module designed for laptops or proprietary systems. The GTX 750’s average benchmark score of 7,222 is higher than the Quadro’s 6,481, and its 40th percentile rank beats the Quadro’s 37th percentile. In the absence of head-to-head gaming tests, the GTX 750’s higher percentile suggests it competes better across the entire GPU ecosystem, likely due to its more balanced Geekbench scores versus the Quadro’s poor PassMark results.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload type. Compute-heavy tasks like machine learning inference, scientific simulation, or large-scale rendering will overwhelmingly favor the Quadro M5000M. General-purpose use, light gaming, or any workload that relies on DirectX 9-12 rasterization will favor the GTX 750, because the Quadro’s PassMark DirectX scores (ranging from 29 to 119) are catastrophically low. The data does not support the Quadro as a gaming card, nor does it support the GTX 750 as a compute card. Each card wins where its architecture is strongest, and loses where it is weakest.